It is sometimes easier to ascertain the ambiguities, disentangle the intricacies, and recover the meaning of events long past, than it is to recover the logic of events now current.
For one, the information industry can easily muddy the waters of the understanding, thanks to their arsenal of weapons of mass confusion.
But there is another subtle cause at play. The human mind does not mirror a computer, nor it functions according to the Boolean logic, whose operators are ‘and’, ‘not’, ‘or’. It has others, such as ‘almost’, ‘maybe’, ‘some’, ‘as if’, ‘in part’, quite, not quite, etc. Which demonstrates a certain mind’s penchant for randomness. A randomness that is transposed into the natural languages, and is conveyed by the lexical operators of ambiguity.
It is a form of semantic insurance, to allow a margin of incoherence, when the truth cannot be free from an uncertainty of possibility.
This characteristic of the mind often allows the mixing of general truths with particular lies (and vice versa). Whoever controls the discourse – as we say today – can then install wrong signposts on the roads towards reality, thereby conditioning judgments. Who, for example, has forgotten the so-called Skripal poisoning, where, with shamelessness beyond blush, UK authorities raised loud hues and cries about being ‘ALMOST’ certain that Russians poisoned the Skripals.
As an aside, but in the same line of thought, whenever a new term, familiar enough but rarely used, appears in Newspeak, we can confidently conclude that the proposition containing the term is a lie, or it includes a falsehood, or it implies the opposite of what is intended to mean. Such is the case of the adjective ‘robust’.
As a recent example, by now all the world well knows (1) that the use of poison gas in the Syrian city of Douma in 2018 was a staged event, an excuse for Trump to let a rain of missiles fall on Syrian targets. But the agency charged for the investigation – the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – OPCW – reversed the actual findings of the operatives in the field. In turn, some had the unusual courage to publicly announce that the agency’s report was false – among them Mr. Ian Henderson.
Answering the charge of falsehood was the United Nations’ UK representative, Karen Pierce, whose ugliness of expression matches her ugliness of thought. And before I am accused of unkindness, I am much of the physiognomer Lavater’s opinion, and persuaded that faces are as legible as books, only with these circumstances to recommend them to our perusal, that they are read in much less time, and are much less likely to deceive us.
Anyway, Karen Pierce was tasked to respond to the allegations of the experts who compiled the original censored report. It is excusable that she may know about poison gases as much as I do, which is nothing. Therefore she could not directly accuse of ignorance an authority on the subject and moreover belonging to the very OPCW. Whereupon she read from a paper saying that, “Scientists may come up with ROBUST statements about their convictions, but they can be wrong.” Translation, Ian Henderson is right.
But I digress. Whether by purpose or chance, some recent events made public cannot but trigger a confusion of horror, an awful stillness of misery and a gloomy anger without recourse.
In the instance, I am referring to the assassination of the Iranian chief of the Revolutionary Guard General Soleimani. I will not repeat what is known, other than re-stating what is clear. Namely, that the members of the US Cabal, of whom Trump seems but a clumsy flag-bearer, have no other rule of action but their present humor and a psychotic desire to command, control and overpower.
Furthermore, the assassination is another proof of how the Cabal, pretending to embody the will of the American people, displays with pride the arrogance of the bully. An arrogance more particularly odious, for it can also buy with wealth or blackmail the assent and the silence of foreign lackeys, ever allured by gold and power, and ever coward when integrity is called for.
It is but one of current Kafkaesque events and situations, bizarre or ludicrous, leaving the individual powerless to understand, let alone to influence what is happening.
It is possible that Trump exercises a limited and precarious authority over the independent chieftains who had raised him, for their service, above the rank of his equals.
Nevertheless, the recurrent posture of exceptionalism maintained by the American political elite has long roots. In 1827 Frances Trollope, mother of the more famous English novelist Anthony Trollope, sailed for America where she lived for a few years. She described her American experience in a most entertaining book, titled “Domestic Manners of the Americans.”
In it she writes, “They believe themselves in all sincerity to have surpassed, to be surpassing, and to be about to surpass, the whole earth in the intellectual race. I am aware that not a single word can be said, painting a different opinion, which will not bring down a transatlantic anathema on my head; yet the subject is too interesting to be omitted.”
Still, the assassination shows yet once more that the Cabal is above all rules, even the rules of warfare, or non-warfare, for there is no currently declared war between the US and Iran. In fact – and I harbor no sympathy whatsoever for the character involved – not even Hitler assassinated Chamberlain when Chamberlain showed up at Munich.
Probably there is no officially recognized time when generally accepted rules of warfare came into being. But each description or narrative must have a beginning. As Socrates says in Phaedrus, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning. But the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten could not be a beginning.
Therefore, I assume arbitrarily that the beginning of the rules of warfare is the Treaty of Augsburg, signed in 1559 by the brother of Emperor Charles V, and by the League of the Protestant German Princes. The treaty established a temporary truce in the Wars of Religion and is remembered by its sealing principle – Cuius Regius, eius Religio – whose is the reign, his is the religion.
This appeared simple enough to understand and implement – and, among other things, it gave official status to Lutheranism within the domains of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact it worked, at least in Germany, for more than 50 years.
Transposed to our own times – when the representatives of an elected majority are the equivalent of the king’s will – we could say, “whose is the majority, theirs is the government.”
This too appeared simple enough to implement, at least until 1989. Since then, the principle underwent a critical modification: the will of a nation’s majority is only recognized if it conforms to the will of the US Cabal.
Returning to the rules of warfare, to disrupt the Augsburg agreement was the King of Bohemia, Ferdinand I in 1618, when he violently undertook to restore his land to Catholicism. Regrettably, the original signatories of the Augsburg agreement did not account for kings changing their religion. Or for instances when the religious views of the next king would be opposite to those of the last.
The ensuing war drew in just about all powers of Europe. It ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westfalia and with a restatement of the Augsburg ruling, “whose is the reign, his is the religion,” mellowed by the intervening cultural and practical loss of the influence of religion as a point of contention (or excuse), in international disputes.
Still, a principle was agreed upon, namely that the state is the superior or leading institution of a nation. And that when a state wants war, it must declare it.
The criterion was followed for a long time, with some US exceptions, for example Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1961) and Grenada (1983). Some may say that we should include, among the undeclared wars, the heavy logistic, financial and military support for sundry coups d’etat, especially in South America, but that would not alter the main point.
Matters changed after 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall when, notably in Europe, the national states began to lose their sovereignty, leading eventually to the so-called European Union. From then on, the United States no longer needs to force individual nations to follow orders. There is only one expanded spaniel on whom to impose obedience. And rather than declaring war to a potential enemy the US prefers to kill him before he can respond to a declaration of war.
In the meantime several other changes have occurred in the Western world at large, physical, sociological, political, ideological, industrial, economic, educational and even religious. Their symptoms had been detectable since 1968, but they coalesced, relatively quickly, into what we now call the new world order.
In 1968, with a development that we can only describe as extraordinary, the traditional and healthy rebellious spirit of youth, rather than aiming at social justice, was channeled into a direction that, even today, still seems unthinkable.
But persuasion finds an easy entrance into the mind, when she is introduced by hope and attended by rewards, however unclear or generalized.
With much simplification – and according to the treasonous tenets produced and promoted by the scions of Cultural Marxism – the enemy of happiness, rather than the lack of social justice, is authority of any kind.
According to this view, authority means oppression, anarchy freedom. And because a society of anarchists is a contradiction in terms, the semantic consequences are clear, social structures are restrictive and deserve dissolution. Leading eventually to Thatcher’s famous first nihilistic principle, “There is no society, only individuals.”
Prime targets for dissolution were/are the two institutions on which society traditionally stands, the family, the state, and their associated ethics. Replacing the family is the random coupling between strangers – the new erotic order, as it has been called, along with the legitimization, when not the encouragement of sodomy of all sorts.
In politics, hyper-capitalism responds to the individual need for self-assertion, therefore all means are legitimate and encouraged.
In industry, sack the workers and move production where it is cheapest. And then deport third world masses to further reduce the cost of labor.
In economy, since money is the measure of wealth, and banks are the prime handlers of money, just print and deliver it to the chosen few at the end of the pipe.
In politics, let the economy dictate the rules of behavior to the dwindling remains of independent states – whose pauperized masses “have lived beyond their means.”
In education remove subjects and disciplines suggesting that there was a time informed by other values. As for teachers, reward the subservient, punish the independent and sack the non-conformist.
Greek and Latin literature were common part of education and introductory to university. When they were dropped, a whole tradition of Western history and mythology was lost. Ancient stories were in people’s minds, and when a story is in our mind, we can see its relevance as it gives a perspective to our own events.
For example, when a judge walks into a court and ‘all rise,’ they don’t stand up to the robe he is wearing or the role he is playing. What makes him worthy of that role is his assumed integrity, the integrity of the role and not of his prejudices. In other words, the judge is a mythological character, his robes are a symbol.
Equally, some kings may have been or could be stupid, absurd and dull, but their subjects respond to them in their mythological roles.
Still, in politics and until recently, at least in Europe, the state, among other things, constituted a system or framework for the institutionalization of the conflict among contending groups and classes. As such and being constituted by the elected representatives of the various contending classes, the state was more-or-less an impartial arbiter, for its decisions, however imperfect, reflected the will of the voters.
But after 1989– concurrent with the loss of sovereignty, there began the conversion of the states into a business committee of the dominant class, as Marx wrote in the XIX century. In the XXIst, the state has become a business committee of the globalized banking system, under the aegis and auspices of the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, IMF and sundry shadowy financial institutions.
The consequences are paradoxical. A state without sovereignty no longer uses public funds to invest in the welfare of the community and to help the weaker classes. It rather uses funds to help the dominant financial class. Private banks that become insolvent, after their involvement in massive speculation, are euphemistically branded as “too big to fail,” and consequently saved by public funds.
This is a stratagem that even exceeds in scope and meaning the pronouncement by Adam Smith about the beneficial and “invisible hand of the market.” For in this case, the most hardened fans of a free-market economy in a non-interventionist state, are yet paradoxically ready to call for state intervention to save private banks and the speculators’ asses.
In summary, we have a transition from a sovereign state to a state-independent economy that relies on the state as its guarantor.
In the end, a state deprived of its sovereignty becomes the executor of the impositions of the global financial class, as well as its military arm, when dissenting or rebellious movements attempt to have their instances recognized. The French gilets-jaunes are an example.
Who still wishes to defend the sovereignty of states is a Fascist or a Stalinist. Who wishes to defend the family is a patriarchal homophobe, for he opposes the conversion of society into a mass of atomized and undifferentiated individuals. Who opposes mass immigration and sees in it what it actually is, a mass deportation of humans by the lords of capital, is a xenophobe.
The heralds of globalism and their intellectual lackeys proclaim that difference is bad and must be cured via a therapy of homologation. Everything and everybody is the same, races are the same, sex gender is a construct and optional. Languages, states and cultures are instruments preventing the world from becoming one body of billions sharing their lust for consumption.
All this is pure nihilism, applied to a world converted into a planetary market, where every consumer can and is encouraged to purchase as much as his money can buy.
It is sobering to think that, at its root, the intellectual basis for the new world order is a willful semantic error – the peddling of homologation as synonymous of equality.
In these circumstances asking politicians to change their policies, apart from the inherent absurdity of the effort, partakes of the limitations of giving advice. The adviser is at best ignored or sometimes persecuted with hatred, not because his accusation is false, but because he assumes a superiority that the politicians certainly are not willing to grant him, and has dared to detect what they desire to conceal. This also explains, at root, the hatred for whistleblowers.
Yet, at times, random events seem, on the surface, to contradict the theories that explain the chronicles of current times. Take the phenomenon of Greta T. Some of us had already smelled the proverbial rat, but then an apparently random, recent and seemingly unrelated event justifies the earlier olfactory perplexity.
BlackRock is a world-leading financial investment firm. And in a recent article in their magazine, republished by major papers in various countries, it is written that, “Sustainability-integrated portfolios can provide better risk-adjusted returns to investors. Sustainability will drive the way we manage risk, construct portfolios, design products, and engage with companies.”
No great imagination is then needed to suggest that Greta T. was/is but a test-tube of the globalist elite of whom BlackRock is a symbol. She is the authorized, endorsed and celebrated model of dissent. Why? Because it is a dissent aimed at retaining and strengthening the asymmetrical relationship between the dominant class and the others.
Indeed, global capitalism must make or pretend to make itself green to prevent the dissolution of itself as we know it. For, as most would agree, the only way to preserve the environment is to alter the current development model – and to forsake the myth of an infinite growth, founded on the metaphysics of limitlessness – that treats the environment as an eternally available resource for an unlimited will to power.
This the dominant class, with its subservient intellectual clergy, must absolutely avoid, for it would mean the end of itself.
Here is then the objective of the ‘green initiative’ – the pretense to change reality without changing it at its roots. The ‘green economy’ will not overcome capitalism but coat it with a different paint. Besides, the novel attention to the environment conceals a new and immense business to the detriment of the working class, who will have to adapt to new dictates.
Greta T., with her ‘Fridays for the Environment’ is equally useful for manipulating public opinion and for attributing guilt and responsibilities for the environmental tragedies to those who, in order to live must work and reach their workplace by means of their cars in long lines of traffic.
Against the bleak prospects of the new world order it may be reasonable to think that the Catholic Church could have taken or take a stand. It didn’t, it won’t and is all for it.
For example, Pope Bergoglio is a great promoter of interracial breeding. I quote, “Some people want to block the process which is so important because it renews peoples, which miscegenation is. Mixing makes you grow, gives you new life. It develops intersections, mutations and gives originality“
and (I am translating literally),
“By being the mother of God the Madonna made herself of mixed race. She became of mixed race in order to be one with mankind – Mary, who succeeded in realizing a miscegenation with God, real God and real man.”
A few years back Bergoglio said that Jesus Christ was the son of migrants.
As for a limit to unrestricted immigration, “Xenophobia and aporophobia (fear of poverty – my note – following the lowering of salaries and the costs of maintaining/housing the migrant millions) today are part of a populist mentality that does not leave sovereignty to peoples. Xenophobia destroys the unity of a people, even that of the people of God. And the people are all of us: those who were born in one country, and those who have roots in another place or are of different ethnicities”.
As for actual religion, Bergoglio seems to have replaced the theology of transcendence with a Gospel according to Soros, quoting a witty Italian philosopher. For Bergoglio globalization is the goal of mankind. He does not seem concerned about the pervading and prevailing nihilism and the massive ongoing de-christianization, even in countries that for centuries were strongholds of Catholicism, like Ireland.
Not a word was uttered about the inevitable effects of turbo-capitalism in a globalized world without independent states, namely the inevitable concentration of wealth into ever fewer hands.
Showing the spirit of sexual ecumenism, a Spanish reader has sent me an image of the Pope walking hand in hand with “Luigi Ciotti, activista gay, financiado par los Rockefellers, para cumplir su agenda de expansion del movimento gay LGBT para el Nuevo Order Mundial.” The picture also includes a Franciscan friar looking at the joined hands with an understandably puzzled expression.
Finally, with his endorsement of Greta and concern for the environment (however laudable in itself,) Bergoglio has converted the Catholic Church into an unlikely forest ranger of the planet.
Religion is the sacralization of metaphysics, just as mythology is an attempt by imaginative ancients to make sense of the imponderable. Which brings me to conclude by referring to a Greek myth, or rather allegory familiar to many. For an allegory is a close relative of myth and their objectives are similar.
I refer to Plato’s famous cave, described in book 7 of the Republic – where a group of prisoners have been kept in chains since they were children. They are unable to move, and all they can look at is the back-wall of their cave. Behind them and higher up a fire is burning. Between the fire and the prisoners there runs a road, lined on one side by a curtain wall, similar to the screens used in puppet theaters. Roamers of the road carry objects on their heads. The fire and the curtain cause the shadows of the head-carried objects to be projected on the wall that the prisoners can see.
The prisoners give objects names and through them they interpret their world. Unaware of the rigged system behind them, they exchange shadows for realities, ignoring that what for them is the world is but a puppet show.
One of the cave dwellers manages to escape from the cave. Finding everything so different and unfamiliar he is tempted at first to return to the life in the cave. Eventually, he realizes that the world of the cave is a world of shadows and decides to return and persuade his comrades to escape to the light of a real world. But they think he is mad and kill him
If Plato had lived in our historical times, he might have somewhat modified the allegory, by introducing two caves, at least until 1989, an Eastern and a Western. The inhabitants of each could see what happened in the other, thus being aware of their respective limitations. As an escapee from the cave of Eastern Europe said after knowing the West, “All our government said about the East was false, but all they said about the West was true.”
For good or for bad, today there is only one cave left, and their dwellers, especially the Millennials, by default, design or destiny ignore that another world can exist and is possible, outside the cave of turbo-capitalism, statelessness, universal homologation, nihilism and the New World Order.
It would be desirable that they could become aware of it. But wishes in this world are generally vain, and in the next we shall make none.
References:
1. “All the world well know”, from Sonnet 129
“All this the world well knows, yet none knows well
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.”