The Disturbing Origins of Cybernetics and Transhumanism
From Russell and Hilbert to Wiener and Harari
Matthew Ehret
The more we are encouraged to think like cold computers, the more the thesis that “computers must replace human thought” could be maintained. Final Part of a three-part series, you can read Parts One and Two here and here.
As I outlined in my previous article on the Clash of the Two Systems, the end of the 19th century saw a major clash between two opposing paradigms of political economy which has largely been scrubbed out of history books.
Just like today, the two opposing systems were characterized by, on the one hand, a demand for centralized control of the world by a unipolar elite yearning to stand above the influence of sovereign nation-states like modern gods of Olympus, while the other was premised on a “multipolar” design of a community of sovereign nation-states working together on large scale infrastructure and technological progress.
One was premised on closed system Malthusian economic standards of adapting to diminishing returns while the other was founded upon standards of ongoing scientific progress generating creative leaps out of the constraints of limited resource baskets.
Today I would like to continue to trace the roots of those poisonous ideas which characterize today’s unipolar paradigm which masquerades behind a billionaire-authored “Great Reset” of world civilization.
In this reset, we are told by the likes of Klaus Schwab that a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” will usher in not only vast automation and Artificial Intelligence operations at every level of society, but also a merging of humanity with machines. Figures like Elon Musk and Google’s Ray Kurzweil assert this merging is needed in order to “stay relevant” in the next phase of our evolution.
Davos-man Yuval Harari echoed that the levers of evolution will now be moved from the randomness of nature into the new gods running Google, Facebook and the WEF.
This Borg-like deterministic faith in the human-machine synthesis that pervades the thinking of all modern transhumanists is both cultish, creepy and just plain wrong. However, without a proper evaluation into the historic roots of these ideas that threaten to derail global civilization into a dystopian collapse, it is impossible to understand anything fundamental about the past 120 years of human experience, let alone see where the fatal flaws are within the Great Reset/Transhumanist operating system.
In part one of our series, we explored the eugenics-roots of transhumanism in some detail with a focus on Julian Huxley’s creation of UNESCO where the mandate to “make the unthinkable become thinkable” guided the restoration of a new eugenics during the Cold War.
In part two, we explored the rise of a new array of 19th century British think tanks designed to disrupt the natural evolution of a new system of win-win cooperation during the end of the 19th century.
This new grand design was innovated by Thomas Huxley’s X Club in order to re-establish the British Empire as the only unipolar power on the earth. Huxley’s design attempted to not only unify all branches of sciences under one descriptive model devoid of any actual creative discovery, but also attempted to use this new control of the definition of “scientific natural law” to justify an aggressive new imposition of imperial political economy onto the world.
The Dance of Math and Physics: Who Leads and Who Follows?
In the opening months of the new century, a major event took place that went far to apply Huxley’s mission. The Future of Mathematics Conference of August 1900 was a global event attracting over 160 of the greatest mathematicians who wished to tackle cutting edge problems in science and deal with the relationship between physics and mathematics.
Obviously, these two fields danced together, but the question remained: which would lead and which would follow?
Considering the fact that the world population still numbered well below two billion at this time, the density of scientific discoveries across all domains was occurring at a rate unseen in human history. From new discoveries in biology, embryology, atomic physics, electromagnetism, aerodynamics and chemistry, the answer to the math vs physics question was increasingly becoming obvious. The fact was that the growth of human knowledge was fast outpacing the limits of the mathematical language used by scientists.
With time, new mathematical systems would be developed to describe the new creative discoveries being made, but no one could deny that creative thought was leading in this dance. What was also undeniable was the dramatic benefit that new ideas had to improve the conditions of countless lives through leaps in scientific and technological progress.
Hilbert and Russell Shape a New Paradigm
Two particularly important figures who played leading roles in sabotaging science during the 1900 Paris Conference and whose ideas are inextricably linked to the later evolution of eugenics, cybernetics and transhumanism were Cambridge Apostle Lord Bertrand Russell and Gottingen mathematician David Hilbert.
The duo aimed at nothing less than the reduction of the entire universe into a series of finite, internally consistent mathematical propositions and axioms.
During the 1900 conference, Hilbert announced his 23 problems for mathematics that would need to be solved by mathematicians of the 20th century. While many of these problems were genuinely important, the most destructive for the purpose of this article centered around the need to “prove that all axioms of arithmetic are consistent” [problem 2] and “axiomatize those physical sciences in which mathematics plays an important role” [problem 6].
It took 13 years for Russell to achieve this objective in the form of his Principia Mathematica (co-authored with his former instructor and fellow Cambridge Apostle Alfred North Whitehead).
The name “Principia Mathematica” was chosen explicitly as an homage to Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” published 200 years earlier. At the time of the 1900 launch of the Russell-Hilbert project, both Euclid and Newton’s flat interpretations of physical space-time were quickly crumbling with the advent of new discoveries by Riemann, Curie, Weber, Planck and Einstein who were all demonstrating that the shape of physical space-time had a living, creative character.
With each creative discovery, a reciprocal interconnectedness between the “subjective” inner space of human cognition and the “objective” outer space of the discoverable universe was ever more firmly established.
Exemplifying this beautiful insight and passion to seek the unknown which was common among great scientists during this fertile revolutionary period, Einstein stated:
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”
Reflecting this same view in his own way, Max Planck stated:
Science enhances the moral value of life, because it furthers a love of truth and reverence — love of truth displaying itself in the constant endeavor to arrive at a more exact knowledge of the world of mind and matter around us, and reverence, because every advance in knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our own being.”
Closed System Entropy Must Define the Universe!
Russell’s closed system entropic mathematics was a direct reflection of his misanthropic view of an entropy-destined humanity which can explicitly be seen in his 1903 statement:
That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
When pondering which set of metaphysical views has the greater claim to truth featured above, it is worth asking the question: Who actually made demonstrable discoveries into creation and who merely formulated ivory tower models devoid of any actual element of discovery?
Part of the formula for success, in Russell’s mind, hinged on his obsession with mathematical equilibrium in all things. When applied to society, it was no wonder that Russell was a devout Malthusian and lifelong promoter of eugenics and population control. One of his many displays of this disgusting view was made in his 1923 Prospects of Industrial Civilization where the social engineer stated:
Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so. A slow increase might be coped with by improvements in agricultural methods, but a rapid increase must in the end reduce the whole population to penury… the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence…Until that happens the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.”
Russell’s later writings in The Scientific Outlook (1930) extend his views of a stationary global society onto educational reform where he defines the need to have not one, but two separate modes of education: one for the elite master class who will become rulers and one for the inferior slave class. Russell outlines the two castes in the following cold-blooded terms:
The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play […] All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.”
For the ruling class, “Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order”, Russell explained:
“members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements.”
All of Russell’s later writings promoting pre-emptive nuclear bombings of Russia, World Government run by a scientific dictatorship and teaching children to believe that “snow is black” must be read with his racist philosophical worldview in mind.
Norbert Wiener and the Rise of Cybernetics
In 1913, as Russell’s third and final volume of the Principia Mathematica was being printed, a young mathematics protégé arrived at Cambridge from the USA on a scholarship.
This teenager’s name was Norbert Wiener and he soon found himself among a small group of boys closely mentored by Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert.
Under Russell, Wiener was taught logic and philosophy while Hilbert taught him differential equations. Speaking of Russell, Wiener said: “when I came to study under Bertrand Russell in England, I learned that I had missed almost every issue of true philosophical significance”. He called Hilbert “the one really universal genius of mathematics”.
Throughout his entire life, Wiener was possessed by the obsession to express Russell’s logical closed system in practical ways.
Despite the fact that a young Leibnizian genius named Kurt Gödel threw a major wrench into Russell’s Principia program through his brilliant 1931 demonstration that no logical system could ever be truly consistent with itself due to the self-reflexive nature of all existent systems, Russell pushed forward with the project full force and Wiener was Russell’s leading apostle.
Other Russellites whose theories of machine learning included such names as Alan Turing, Oskar Morgenstern, Claude Shannon and John von Neumann. While each mathematician had their own particular innovation to offer, they were all united by the unwavering faith that a human mind was a mixture of bestial impulses guided by closed-system machine logic and nothing more.
In a computer, the whole is but the sum of parts, and so too must it be in all information systems including human brains, ecosystems and the universe as a whole. “Metaphysical” principles like soul, purpose, God, justice and free will had no place in the minds of these human calculators.
By the end of WW2, Wiener’s work on feedback loops in aeronautics and radar led the mathematician to devise a new language for managing complex human systems which he soon discovered had application in business, military affairs and entire nations. The term he gave this new tool of control was “cybernetics”. Describing his invention, Weiner stated:
Cybernetics, which I derived from the Greek word Kubernetes, or steersman, the same Greek word from which we eventually derive our word governor.”
By relying on binary closed system computer machines as his model for human minds, Weiner demanded that metaphysical concepts be assumed to have no existence beyond the merely physical characteristics of the measurable electrochemical properties of the brain.
Describing this computer-mind analog, Weiner stated:
It became clear to us that the ultra rapid computing machine, depending as it does on consecutive switching devices must represent almost an ideal model of the problems arising in the nervous system.”
And that:
the problem of interpreting the nature and varieties of memory in the animal has its parallel in the problem of constructing artificial memories for the machine.”
Cybernetics for Global Governance
Forecasting the inevitability of systems of global information control (and thus total political control by a god like governing class) as well as artificial intelligence, Weiner wrote:
where a man’s word goes and where his power of perception goes, to that point his control and in a sense his physical existence is extended. To see and to give commands to the whole world is almost the same as being everywhere.”
The key to understanding the attraction of cybernetics to a scientific dictatorship desirous of total omniscience and omnipotence is the following: In the context of a large boat, only the helmsman need have an idea of the whole. Everyone else need only understand their local compartmentalized role.
With the application of cybernetics to the organization of economic systems (as carried forth by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments’ Sir Alexander King and applied across governments of the trans-Atlantic during the 1960s and 1970s), vast complex bureaucracies emerged with only small nodes of “helmsmen” embedded within the newly emerging deep state complex who had access to a vision of the whole.
This was the perfect operating system for a supranational technocracy to use to control the levers of the New World Order.
One of the most enthusiastic practitioners of this new system during this period of transformation was Pierre Elliot Trudeau (the newly imposed Prime Minister of Canada) who shaped a vast cybernetics revolution of the Canadian government between 1968-1972 under the control of the Privy Council Office.
During a November 1969 conference on Cybernetics in Government, Trudeau said:
We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society. With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert powers of fate.”
Trudeau worked closely with Sir Alexander King in the formation of a new organization that had a profound impact on global governance from 1968-present called the Club of Rome. Trudeau was a devout supporter of this new organization which became a center of neo-Malthusian revivalism during the early year 1970s. Trudeau even presided over the Canadian Club of Rome and allocated money to fund the MIT Club of Rome study “Limits to Growth” which became a bible for the modern environmental organization.
Alexander King and the computer model made famous in the 1972 Limits to Growth that imposed a new schism between humanity’s desire to develop vs nature’s supposed desire to rest in mathematical equilibrium
Unlike Russell, who denied all cases of anti-entropy, Weiner allowed for the existence of isolated islands of limited anti-entropy in the case of biology and human systems which tended to operate in ways that saw entropy (aka: the tendency of systems to collapse into equilibrium) decrease. However just like Russell, Wiener believed that cybernetics and information theory were shaped entirely by entropy, saying:
The notion of the amount of information attaches itself very naturally to a classical notion in statistical mechanics: that of entropy.” [aka: the second law of thermodynamics]
In Wiener’s mind, the dominant law of the universe as a decaying finite place shaped by death which would inevitably destroy the limited states of anti-entropic life which occurred purely by chance in random parts of “space” and in “time” saying in 1954:
it is highly probable that the whole universe around us will die the heat death, in which the world shall be reduced to one vast temperature equilibrium in which nothing really new ever happens. There will be nothing left but a drab uniformity.”
The Macy Conferences on Cybernetics
From 1943 until 1953, Wiener’s cybernetics and his information theory corollary became the rallying point for a new scientific priesthood that would gather together leading thinkers of every branch of knowledge in the same effort that was previously made under the 19th century helmsman Thomas Huxley and his Royal Society X Club.
These conferences were funded by the Josiah Macy Foundation which had been created by General Marlborough Churchill (a cousin of Winston Churchill) in 1930 with the primary aim of conduiting funds towards eugenics research in both the USA and Germany, alongside its sister organization called The Rockefeller Foundation.
The latter operation would fund leading Nazi eugenicist Ernst Rudin from 1928 throughout the entire 1930s while sponsoring research led by the British and American eugenics societies.
As Anton Chaitkin points out in his British Psychiatry from Eugenics to Assassination, the Macy Foundation’s founder and controller Gen. Marlborough had formerly headed the military intelligence’s Black Chamber from 1919 until its disbanding in 1929. The Black Chamber interfaced closely with British Intelligence and served as the predecessor to what later became the National Security Agency (NSA).
Starting in 1945 and desperately in need to prevent the spread of the American System of Political Economy and an international New Deal that had been put into motion by anti-imperial president Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics began meeting every six months bringing together Tavistock-connected psychiatrists, biologists, neurologists, computer engineers, sociologists, economists, mathematicians, and even theologians.
Wiener described these conferences which shaped the course of the next 75 years saying:
for human organization, we sought the help from the anthropologists Doctors [Gregory] Bateson and Margaret Mead while Dr. [Oskar] Morgenstern of the Institute of Advanced Study was our advisor in the significant field of social organization belonging to economic theory…Dr [Kurt] Lewin represented the newer work on the opinion of opinion sampling and the practice of opinion making”.
Social Engineering Drives the Post-War Order
For those who may not know, Dr Bateson was a leading controller of the CIA’s MK Ultra program which ran from 1952-1973 as a multi billion-dollar covert operation designed to study the effects of depatterning both individuals and groups using mixtures of electroshock therapy, torture and drugs.
Oskar Morgenstern was the innovator of “Game Theory” which played a dominant role in both military planning of the Vietnam War as well as economic systems for the next 70 years.
Dr Kurt Lewin was a leading psychiatrist from London’s Tavistock Clinic and member of the Frankfurt School that organized a concerted program to eliminate the sickness of national patriotism, belief in truth, and family love throughout the Cold War period.
A prominent conference member and planner of this operation was named Sir Julian Huxley – a leading eugenicist and imperial grand strategist who worked closely with fellow Fabian Society leader Bertrand Russell. Huxley shared Russell and Wiener’s devout belief in universal entropy saying in 1953:
Nowhere in all its vast extant is there any trace of purpose, or even of prospective significance…It is impelled from behind by blind physical forces, a gigantic jazz dance of particles and radiations in which the only over-all tendency we have so far been able to detect is that summarized in the second law of thermodynamics – the tendency to run down.”
As he was beginning to formulate his concept of “transhumanism” and while he was organizing the Macy Cybernetics Conferences, Julian found the time to create the United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946 drafting its founding manifesto. His entropic view of biology and physics was clearly expressed in his bone chilling political views wherein he writes:
The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means of avoiding war… in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for a world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”
Working in tandem with the World Health Organization – itself created by a Tavistock psychiatrist named G. Brock Chrisholm – and funded entirely by the Macy Foundation, Huxley organized the creation of the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH) overseen by the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman and directed by the head of London’s Tavistock Clinic Maj. General John Rawlings Rees, whom Montagu directly appointed.
Chaitkin points out that among the first projects which the WFMH and Macy Foundation jointly organized were the “Conferences on Problems of Health and Human Relations in Germany” in 1949-1950 which ensured that the Frankfurt School’s Authoritarian Personality thesis was drilled into the minds of all German children.
The goal was to persuade the German people that the whole fault of Hitler’s rise to power was not to be found in looking for international conspiracies or City of London/Wall Street manipulation…but rather in the “authoritarian psychological-genetic” disposition of the German people themselves.
This program was overseen by Tavistock Director Kurt Lewin, who by this time became a leading figure of the Frankfurt School and innovator of a new brainwashing technique called “sensitivity training” which relied heavily on the use of guilt complexes and group pressure to break the will of a target group either in a classroom or in the workplace and absorbing any original thinkers into states of groupthink.
Lewin’s work with the WFMH and Tavistock also became the foundation for today’s Critical Theory doctrines that threaten to undermine the entire scope of western civilization.
To the degree that individuals think for themselves and are inner-directed by factors of 1) creative reason and 2) conscience, the group-think systems no longer behave according to the sort of statistically predictable rules of entropy and equilibrium which control-hungry oligarchs and technocrats demand. Erasing that factor of “unpredictability” by making the argument that all leaders who profess truth are simply “authoritarian personalities” and “new Hitler-types”, the virtue of mobs was raised above the virtue of individual genius and initiative which continues to plague the world to this day.*
Cybernetics Conferences evolved throughout the 1960s-1970s finding themselves increasingly integrated with international organizations like the United Nations, World Health Organization, NATO, and OECD. As this integration occurred, the new technocrats became ever more influential in setting the standards of the new world operating system. Meanwhile, national governments found themselves increasingly cleansed of nationalist moral leaders like John F. Kennedy, Charles DeGaulle, Enrico Mattei, and John Diefenbaker resulting in the integration of systems analysis and cybernetics into the governing framework of the new international deep state.
While Julian Huxley coined the term “transhumanism” in 1957, the cult of Artificial Intelligence guided by a belief in the inevitable merger of man and machine grew increasingly with such major events as the man-computer symbiosis thesis of JCR Licklider of 1960 and the application of these systems into Department of Defense programs like wargames command systems, SAGE (Semi Automatic Ground Environment), and unmanned jet plane defense networks. DARPA’s Augmented Cognition Computer-Soldier dyads were yet another expression of this perverse idea with hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the creation of enhanced cyborg soldiers.
Over the years, followers of this new cult soon found themselves operating as helmsmen in the new global ship of earth giving rise to a new global elite class of technocrats and oligarchs loyal only to their caste and ideology, striving to shape their minds ever more closely to the model of idea computing machines capable of logic, but not love or creativity.
The more that these cultish technocrats like Yuval Harari, Ray Kurzweil, Bill Gates or Klaus Schwab could think like cold computers, while getting the masses of the earth to do the same, the more the thesis that “computers must obviously replace human thought” could be maintained.
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow, BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation. This article was recently adapted into a short video found here.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
According to Gunther Anders, we are still in the 3rd Industrial Revolution which will be the last, and he explains why. He explains why computers are no different in function on human mentality than TV and even radio. “The Obsolescence of Man”, both volumes.
Also, according to Ivan Illich, the problem with the “science” of today not that it is science (that is, what the scientists think) – but that it is amoral and represents psychopathic mentality (that is, what the science is actually for, to what end the means).
From “George Bernard Shaw” by GK Chesterton, 1909:
“Shaw could have learned from Nietzsche to drink wine or to dance; instead, Shaw fastened on to a superstion which I fear will become the chief superstition of the dark ages that loom before us: the Superstition of the Superman.”I
Totally conflated. A smodge podge of reversable ontology to prove those of the author not those quoted out of context. Hilbert was one the most brilliant thinkers at the beginning of that century. As for expecting Hilbert to be complicit in the authors valued ideas will not help much. What next bring in Gauss or Riemann or who else, ah yes Einstein, whatever he had to do with this story is not logical. I mean god is a brain spectre. If as a private person the great Einstein wants to have a little chat, well why not. After all he insisted Roosevelt build a fission bomb on no evidence. Hitler was interested in using this process to produce electricty. The irony of ideological preemption.
Yeah I disagree with the Einstein part but the rest is not wrong there is a “cabal of scientists” since at least 20th century as is pointed on the article.
Just a thank you for your article, even though it sent shivers down my back.
Still, pretending that there is no soul won’t make it go away. Insisting, that transhumanism is the evolutionary pinnacle of the human race, doesn’t make it true.
Lewin, Harari, Kurzweil, Weiner, Schwab (?), The Frankfurt School (Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse et al).
….
#early life
……
don’t look, don’t see
Better: look and see:
https://technologyandsociety.org/norbert-wiener-and-the-counter-tradition-to-the-dream-of-mastery/
Best: stop
wankingparroting, see what’s there.That article goes some way toward restoring Weiner’s personal character, fair enough, but it doesn’t really answer the point made. The denizens of ‘bad ideas’ seem to hark, far more frequently than chance or intelligence would allow, from a group with the same background.
Whether it is wokeness, the development of propaganda in the age of mass communication, authoritarian state communism, neoliberal economics and the domination of finance capital, neoconservativism and its proxy wars, draconian censorship online, the excellence at selling vice ….
…the same story.
It is not ‘wanking’ to ask ‘Why?’.
‘One of the technologies that worried Wiener most was the one he was most directly responsible for creating, automation.’
What motivated him to create it in the first place ?
The Gosling character at the end of ‘Believer’ is endlessly climbing a staircase in the afterlife. His teacher stands there on the stairwell telling him, “there is nothing up there”.
If one believes that there is nothing ‘up there’ then why not try one’s best to control what is here, if that is all that there is ?
In short, considering the mathematics of Brownian motion, a purely abstract academic problem, which was also adressed by Einstein a couple of decades earlier but not so rigorously; one that–when fully worked out by Wiener and, later, others–led, as the “Weiner process”– to a large (and stlll growing) number of practical applications that involve the evaluation of stochastic probabilities. That’s what pure mathematicians do: address abstract mathematical problems to provide rigorous mathematical solutions, and that’s what time (sometimes months, sometimes years, sometimes centuries, sometimes millennia, sometimes never (yet)) does to the successful solutions: throw up applications that they describe as perfectly as their place in time will allow.
Wiener didn’t ‘create’ cybernetics, he coined the term to denote the complex and essentially random flows of information that characterize all informational human←→human, human←→machine and machine←→machine interactions. If you don’t, can’t or won’t understand what pure scientists and mathematicians (Newton, Mendel, Mendeleev, Einstein, Planck*, Wiener, Hawking, Holland and scores of others before and since) do or why they do it, then you will probably not have a valid concept of what they do or why they do it, which could feed into all sorts of excluded outsider fantasies about their thereby “hidden intent” (and, in these parts, usually does).
Unlike many or even most theoretical scientists who have little or no interest in their work beyond the theoretical, Wiener had a wide ranging and active concern for the human condition and a commitment to its wellbeing. As did Einstein, whose theories of relativity have led to applications that have had an equally dramatic impact on humanity and whose concern over those that could have an especially negative impact was as important a part of his social thinking as was Wiener’s.
If you really want to get a feel for how pure science consists of refining a specific sort of understanding through the interplay of and historical flows of rigorously constructed mathematical and physical theories and their augumentation or refutation, etc., with particular reference to Wiener, you might care to check out the long online Encyclopedia Britannica article on the “Brownian Motion Process”. But you’ll first need to accept that advanced mathematics and the “hard” sciences are hard going. For cybernetics, Wiener’s book “Cybernetics” is a good technical reference but his later work, “The Human Use of Human Beings”, provides a more popular way in to both his technical and humanitarian ideas.
* Max Planck, the originator of quantum theory, noted that it was only much later that he actually understood what he had proposed. A characteristic of those who don’t know that, as the late Donald Rumsfeld said, there are unknown unknowns, things that we do not know what we do not know at the time we do not know them, is the wilful, thus ignorant, harsh judgementality of others that arises from far too much unselfreflective looking into vanity mirrors (especially while wanking 🙂
By citing Einstein you are making my point for me.
It is hard to find a more selective ‘humanitarian’ than Albert Einstein. Certainly one so famous.
I am no expert on the history of science, but it seems hard to deny the many substantiated accusations of outright plagiarism against him. The least that could be said is that he was reluctant to credit the influence of others’ work on relativity that preceded the publication of his famous papers.
I used to have his quotations on my wall, but now, after reading more about the man and his zionism, I consider him something of a fraud.
Many of these people genuinely believe they are helping the world, and that is one great part of the tragedy of it all. Tikkun olam.
Oh yeah, and on the wanking thing, do you know who (by their own proud admission), basically created the modern porn industry, who runs it, who lobbied so hard for the relaxation of obstructive laws against it ?
They think it is a good thing too, some kind of pathway to a collective Reichian orgasmic healing. Reich, again….
We have now, for good or bad, a Western world of wankers.
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for every thing, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.—Great God! I’d rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.
Those who would be the ruling class are doomed to fail because they lack what enabled man to achieve civilization–compassion, hard work, integrity, and belief in family, freedom, and free markets. It is the product of the latter that allowed these “intellectuals” to spend their lives undermining the civilization that enabled them. The world would be a better place without them.
From https://technologyandsociety.org/norbert-wiener-and-the-counter-tradition-to-the-dream-of-mastery/ by Doug Hill, June 2017:
and
and
In a response to the first of Ehret’s articles, while I noted that Erhet took a longer perspective on the matters that concern the locally plentiful crazed victims of the death of God, I pointedly left open the possibility that, nevertheless, he could be just another panicking airhead-come-lately who cherry picks ill-researched and ill-considered quotelets into farragoes of lunatic hypotheses respecting nothing and nobody, least of all intelligent discourse, as some sort of self- aggrandizement. Like children who self-harm to prove they’re alive. Apologies for the omission (and for indulging in the luxury of posting a put-down consisting entirely of extracts from another: putting much effort into a rational analysis is a hiding to nowhere in these parts).
The links to bibliographic footnotes on the referenced web page have become defunct; I will post a copy here if I can locate one.
For me, it’s like when Jesus was crucified and the graves opened.
That’s how I feel reading this article. These ghouls have come back from the dead.
Okay, okay they never really left us in the first place.
Matthew, this was a learning experience, in all humility. But isn’t the profiling of the Authoritarian Personality a construct framed within the work of Freud. And aren’t they point of juncture where Eugenics joins with Libertarianism?
The authoritarian personality is welcome in some circumstances, not in others…like they are “Good Dominant Beings” and “Bad Dominant Beings”…it all depends of where you stand in History.
MK Ultra had a notorious horror story where it used mental health patients at the Victoria Hospital Ward in Montreal, in complicity with Harvard researchers to conduct tests with LSD in the late 50s and 60s. It was the subject of of collective lawsuit more recently. But psychotropic are used massively as a control system by police and health institutions across Canada. At a time (in the years 2000s), 1 in 4 elementary and pre-school pupils were on Ritalin (to apparently “treat” hyperactivity disorders) in Quebec.
As for population control, I don’t necessarily disagree with it or consider it an evil, but it depends how it is applied…Canada proud of its Multicultural approach to Eugenics.
If you could make the bibliography available, that would be a nice gift. It was a nice series.
DR.SCOTT MCQUATE IS THE TRUTH!!!!
BTW:Thanks for the article.(*_*)
The ruling establishment is deathly afraid of true human progress. They want to remain locked in a closed system loop, resorting to a 17th century Cartesian view that the universe is a machine (so we should be, too) and 18th century economics.
A New York Times Bestseller The Deficit Myth
Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy
“The leading thinker and most visible public advocate of modern monetary theory — the freshest and most important idea about economics in decades — delivers a radically different, bold, new understanding for how to build a just and prosperous society.
Stephanie Kelton’s brilliant exploration of modern monetary theory (MMT) dramatically changes our understanding of how we can best deal with crucial issues ranging from poverty and inequality to creating jobs, expanding health care coverage, climate change, and building resilient infrastructure. Any ambitious proposal, however, inevitably runs into the buzz saw of how to find the money to pay for it, rooted in myths about deficits that are hobbling us as a country.
Kelton busts through the myths that prevent us from taking action: that the federal government should budget like a household, that deficits will harm the next generation, crowd out private investment, and undermine long-term growth, and that entitlements are propelling us toward a grave fiscal crisis. MMT, as Kelton shows, shifts the terrain from narrow budgetary questions to one of broader economic and social benefits.
With its important new ways of understanding money, taxes, and the critical role of deficit spending, MMT redefines how to responsibly use our resources so that we can maximize our potential as a society. MMT gives us the power to imagine a new politics and a new economy and move from a narrative of scarcity to one of opportunity.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/bookauthority/status/1407325908747362307?fbclid=IwAR20LXEH7dgML0aFtkgJgBOuSxuhyr9944ymo_CWPTaUQV3QR0CoFgZrW94
“The neoliberals are prisoners of the Eighteenth Century. They have not advanced since the neo-feudal teachings of Adam Smith (1723-1790).
In Eighteenth Century Great Britain, half the population lived in poverty. They survived, if they did, with disease, famine, illiteracy, lack of sanitation and in slums. It was normal then. Things had always been that way. They thought the poor, starving and ignorant mass of people would always be among them. They thought their society was according to the law of nature.
The neoliberals and their alter-ego, the neocons, do not have any good ideas for the Twenty-first Century. They have caused financial disasters and endless wars, and they tell us not to expect better.” https://truthout.org/articles/the-inhuman-failure-of-austerity/
The false assumptions of economics and medical science (questioning germ theory) are simultaneously crumbling, a step in the right direction.
Are we really truly well?
Prof. Michael Hudson too contrasts MMT with the current system of usury:
https://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-use-and-abuse-of-mmt/
I did prepare a detailed takedown of this bullshit: but it no longer seems appropriate. Some points for the record:
The system of mathematics proposed by Russell and Whitehead was open. Whitehead went on to write the classic of process philosophy “Process and Reality.” A process ontology is by necessity open, forever opening, never closing, never fully realised. Pure change and pure difference for every “occasion of experience”. Which, along with Bergson would later inspire Giles Deleuze. Pure dfference and pure immanence: as yet to be realised at large. Largely because we invest our difference into the word: ignoring the processes of actual reality which is then obscured.
Getting that much wrong implies poor factchecking, and/or ulterior motivation and deliberate distortion. So Russell, much to his later disgust, did advocate pre-emptive bombing of Russia. But he then went the other way, and became known as a humanist famously advocating the Russell/Einstein Manifesto against nuclear war, and for being the first president of CND. So, the article is agendic and propagandic. Or just intentionally asinine.
On cybernetics: reading this word is necessarily “cybernetic”; as there is a constant cognitive process of “reciprocal interconnectedness” between word and brain. The whole process is predictive and “cybernetically” updated. See Maturana, Varella, Damasio, Eaglemen, Friston for detailed anaysis.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02571/full#B85
Incidentally: the process can be described as entropic minimisation or “Free Energy Minimisation”; as detailed by Friston et al. Perception is fundamentally cybernetic, with attention setting up a phenomenological “intentional arc”; and has even been proposed as a “second order” cybernetics. One which includes the observer within the system under observation. Contra the current scientific and philosophical methodologies: that can then be said to be politically and radically “disembodied.”
The basic political process is also cybernetic: right back to the original definition of political science as “steersmanship.” From the latin cognate we get “gubernatorial” and the word “government” itself: in the sense of the “art of governing” as steermanship or piloting the “ship of state”. One whose rudder – or drunken captain – is itself a cybernetic device. So the term is originally Platonistic. Anyone could look that up. Weiner’s coinage is a specialised derivation of a word in use every day. Spooky?
So there are political implications with micromanagement and “cadre cybernetics.” And Beer’s “Viable System Theory” became the corporate model – or one of them – under neoliberalism. But there is also great liberational process ontologies that are purely “cybernetic.” As basic cognition is automatically self-regulating, inferential, and therefore cybernetic and nondual. Hence, “Descartes Error.” Whoo!
Talking of the propagandic use of false binaries: the “deterministic/indeterministic” binary is itself is false and falsifying. It turns out the answer is neither. Causality is probabilistic, stochastic, or reciprocal and cybernetic. If cognition itself is inferential, predictive, a product of “free energy minimisation” or “predictive error minimisation”: then causality is both metaphoric and probabilistic, or reciprocal and circular self-producing processual – which is inherently cybernetic. Cognitive linguistics are nondual: and so is the universe ….as far as we can tell, as “nested” reciprocally interconnected processes and cybernetic affective-relational interactions only differential across scales.
This is the crux metaphysicorum: and warrants proper and insightful investigation. If there is no strict, necessary, and lawfully and universally valid connection between cause and effect; that is, if the system under investigation is not closed, deterministic, entropic, and limited by heat loss on conversion: then knowledge is not even possible. Ditto: an indeterministic and fully relative system of immanent change. If the system is neither deterministc or indeterministc – that is cybernetic and probabilistic – knowledge is possible. Just not the sort of binaristic, reductive, mechanistic, and reciprocally materialistic language-gamification reproduced above.
Everything said about such a system, open or closed, trying to cybernetically steer opinion this way or that, is, by logical necessity a priori bullshit. Which Matthew seems to have a well paid talent for.
Fifty dollars to anyone who can tell me what this guy is talking about.
If obscurity = intelligence, he’s a genius.
If ‘obscurity’ means actually studying the so-called “human condition” including the development of thought, or at least a particular kind of thought – one which references someting called ‘being’ ontological (ontos = being; logos = rational study or discussion of being) ….It’s only obscure if no one else studies our particular ontological form of thinking or psychology – sometimes called “psychohistory.” I’m pretty much gutted just how ‘obscure’ my comments are: being as though they are referring to our common ontological genealogy, philosophy, and philology. We did not think rationally-causally for the whole of history, only for it to go wrong last year. Heck, no. It was fucked up from the start.
Big word alert: hermeneutics – the bigger the model and the bigger the contextual overview, the better the potential for understanding. If you do not know just how fundamental rational-causal thinking is to our worldview: I cannot explain it. Because the methods of explanation themselves are flawed. Cf, “Moore’s Paradox.” Russell himself, commenting on the Hume-Kant dilemma, said that if there is no causality, the metaphysical project is over. Kant ‘fixed’ the problem by adding “I think” to our judgements. I think this is total none-sense.
The problem is that these things are deemed obscure. We could have finished scientific dominance years ago. Hume was right: Kant wrong. Who cares? It is the direct line of thinking from Kantian rational and moral automatism (sic) that is threatening to put a needle in your arm. Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Austen, Ryle, to name a few gave us an opening to develop. You do not think that capitalism is going to develop a generation of open-ended experiantially informed thinkers, do you? We have to do it for ourselves. My comment stands in counter-hegemony to Matthew’s bankers remedy.
Cheerio my deario, BigB usually leaves a few grains for the gleaners. These are my two bits, the parts I think I understand.
“The system of mathematics proposed by Russell and Whitehead was open.” I think it means that R&W set out to derive **All of Math** from a few logical axioms. If they had succeeded, Math would have become a closed system. Happily Russell found a paradox, just when he thought their work was complete, which proved that Math is open: it can grow from new ideas, from flashes of genius.
“Whitehead went on to write” that conscious thinking is hard and slow work; we should try to move conscious thought into the unconscious level in order not to clutter up our brains.
“the Russell/Einstein Manifesto against nuclear war, and [Russel became] the first president of CND.” This shows that Russell remained youthful to an advanced age, capable of learning from his mistakes; and capable of resisting the police at an anti-nuclear demo like any young tearaway.
Reality has not been shown to be a purely linguistic entity which, if we cease talking about it, will cease existing. Yet that seems to be what you’re suggesting. Otherwise, why analyze an article based almost exclusively on how its content is phrased?
Parsing reality is decidedly not the same as scientifically investigating it.
Oh, BTW, if I may wax petty for a moment. the following phrase is incorrectly stated:
It should be “neither”…”nor.” (Just think Norbert when using “neither.”)
Whitehead did go on to develop his ideas in Process and Reality. And Russell did found CND. Surely yo got that much? And if my statements are true, the article is asinine or has an agenda for distorting the facts. That is not merely stylistic.
There is more: but I literally can’t be bothered to keep making the same points for people to ignore. The language literally says nothing. Metaphorically, maybe. But only when we parse the metaphysics from our thinking. Science = metaphysics = cause and effect = determinism = closed system. What is so hard to understand about that?
The argument between the Scientist and the Humanist archetypes is now 150years old. I’m not about to go back over it: but sociology does not conform to the physicist’s laws. Least of all: neither does cognition. Nothing repeats, nor is it strictly lawfully causal. Nor is it random. If it is: then stimulus-effect behaviouralism is all we are capable of. That and operant conditioning. Which in fact does adequately express modern life. Because we do not understand consciousness at all. We never studied it, we just talked about it and rationally-causally explained it away.
The world is ecologically indeterminate, but not actually random. Experience is infinitely varied and variable: except under common conceptual conditions and capitalist binary moralism. We have enough understanding of science to rewrite science to include human cognition and nature. You must at least know that the philosophical method and the scientific method eliminated consciousness from their study? What passes as capitalist subjectivity is less than conscious and predetermined to be subordinated to science. Which leaves out consciousness a priori. Which is a form of reciprocal self-producing none-sense.
In the last 40 years alone: the Cartesian metaphysics and methodological monism have been challenged by, yes, the science. Positivism has had to accept fallibilism: and neuroscience has challenged rationalism and dualistic consciousness. By the old definitions; we are not rational and we are barely conscious. But, by and large, the dominant/hegemonic worldview is still Cartesian. Which is plainly false, remaining in situ by fear, violence and other forms of dominance, underpinned by capitalist growth and pseudo-permanent hallucinations of a continuum of perpetual growth. If we grow materialistically, we die. Other forms of growth are available and now necessary. Such as process ontologies or becoming rather than permanent being.
Once again, the world is in flux. There is no hidden invisible realm of being causing this. And there is no invisible realm of substance causing being to cause existence. The predicaments of the current way of speaking about things are complete fucking none-sense. The invisible access to an inexistent realm of causality, order, and connection behind the sensible world is the sine qua non of the current ongoing situation. But there is no way to expose why. Rational causality is the cause of the causality of scientific invisible realities made real, and imposed by pire-violence (evil.)
See you tomorrow for another day of talking about being that does not exist, and cannot of ever existed, but for the talking about it. And then the next day ….and the next. Maybe if we stopped talking about it, it would go away?
BTW; if we stopped talking, do you suppose the things we are supposedly talking about would disappear? The appearances, not the hidden ‘reality’ that is? No, they would not. When you use the name ‘reality’ in the current context: you make an ontological truth claim about something called universals. Universal things said of universal being: like universal substance. What substance? What being?
Philosophy and science are the study of being in thought and extension. When we started taking our metaphors seriously, and absolutely literally, as though they actually connect to some mythical hypercosmic substance in existence, essence, extension, potentiality, actuality ….’reality’; we ‘split’ both reality and substance; into an absolute duality which already entailed corona neoliberalism. Nothing ever ‘split’ outside our language-gamification and metaphysical mind-games we like to play ….as though there is an extralinguistic and extraphenomenological reality behind reality!
‘Reality’, ‘substance,’ ‘essence,’ ‘existence’ are nonce words which act as an ontological framework for none-sense. When we pick apart the linguistic fabrications we live by; something appears from beneath the metaphysical verbiage. Only, do not call it ‘real.’
Thanks for the tip: my writing skills and punctuation are deteriorating with rage! (That’s a joke, BTW.)
Capitalist binary moralism..I can relate to the abuse of this expression in modern politics and it’s diminishing effect on our rights and claims as citizenry.
What I appreciate about your writing is that it makes clear from the start that I lack the references to participate to it in a contributing manner. At least I feel elevated by this level of self-consciousnesses on my part. I could, alas, only contribute general and vague content to your contributions…yet thank you for the link,I am intellectually curious. And because you appear to gather mostly down arrows, you must have some metal in you…I am thumbing you up!
Imagine this: We’re all on a prison planet having been sent here for wasting our eternal lives elsewhere. We are doing time and are confronted at some point during our stay with the prospect of giving up our eternal soul for an easier or more pleasurable time here and of course the ‘smartest’ among us know that eternity and souls are all nonsense because that’s what we have been taught so we readily give it up for ‘health’ or ‘fame’ or ‘wealth’. Transhumanism is giving up of the eternal soul for the illusion of eternity. Christopher Marlowe said it better.
“Transhumanists do not believe in the existence of a soul, but they are not strict materialists, either. Kurzweil claims he is a “patternist”, characterising consciousness as the result of biological processes, “a pattern of matter and energy that persists over time”. These patterns, which contain what we tend to think of as our identity, are currently running on physical hardware – the body – that will one day give out. But they can, at least in theory, be transferred onto supercomputers, robotic surrogates or human clones. A pattern, transhumanists would insist, is not the same as a soul. But it’s not difficult to see how it satisfies the same longing. At the very least, a pattern suggests that there is some essential core of our being that will survive and perhaps transcend the inevitable degradation of flesh.”
https://h.plus/news/the-spiritual-side-of-transhumanism/
The existence of a soul doesn’t depend on whether an academic has decided to accept its existence in their model (thank God!).
Please tell us what did chris marlowe say better?
Sorry,
I couldn’t bother reading, far too many words, don’t want to go through the misery. but does the article talk about fudged numbers, fakery, false claims?
if not, the article may not be whole in relation to the subject, more a hole in relation to the subject.
If you aren’t affiliated with any of the agencies but an everyday person genuinely looking to learn & understand, as to what is really going on
http://mileswmathis.com/
has a lot of good info.
I recommend starting with following paper (Charlie Manson & Tate case), which will basically pull the rug under your feet and drop you to the floor, and there are a whole lot more you can read to help get back on your feet again.
http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf
Good luck,
whishing everyone the best.
The murders were perpetrated on behalf of Polanski.
“It’s obvious face nappies dont work. I can prove it. When you fart the gasses escape through at least 2 layers of cloth. A virus is much smaller than a fart molecule. Think about it.” (Michael Thomas. CairnsNews. ‘comments’ 27 June 2021)
Apart from being useless, masks harm you directly; they can (a) cause collapse (b) cause respiratory/skin diseases (c) weaken immunity by raising blood acidity (d) shed micro-fibres into airways. Indirect harm includes adding to the mountains of plastic waste.
Not to mention the damage to our psyche these muzzles cause.
“During the 1900 conference, Hilbert announced his 23 problems for
the mathematics that would need to be solved by mathematicians of the 20th
century. While many of these problems were genuinely important, the
most destructive for the purpose of this article centered around the
need to “prove that all axioms of arithmetic are consistent” [problem
2] and “axiomatize those physical sciences in which mathematics plays
an important role” [problem 6].
It took 13 years for Russell to achieve this objective in the form of
his Principia Mathematica (co-authored with his former instructor and
fellow Cambridge Apostle Alfred North Whitehead).”
Not so. Russell failed, and knew he had failed, because of a simple paradox:
The barber shaves everyone who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber?
This destroys Hilbert’s program by introducing an undecidable
statement. A simpler example is when someone says, “I am lying.”
Kurt Goedel really obliterated it in the ’30s by proving that any
axiomatic system complicated enough to deal with arithmetic must have
a fatal flaw. If it can prove all true statements, it will also prove
some false statements. If it proves no false statements, there are
true statements that it cannot prove.
Many thanks for explaining so simply what I tried to understand in Philosophy 2, and failed.
The great thing for me about this article is that it clarifies the situation we are now in from the the perspective of- is the universe alive or dead? Well I know that it’s alive and people like Russell think it’s dead. For years I’ve considered a great deal of “philosophy” to be no more than a statement of how the philosopher got it wrong, all the time knowing they could “prove” the opposite with their incisive logic. Very frustrating. It’s so obvious to me that their very first step is in the wrong direction and that each subsequent step takes them further from the truth with their brilliant minds leading them into a vacuum of egotistical delusion they insist is real ,dragging us all with them. In Russell’s case, I am aware that he had great insight into many things but his whole bearing was that of a conceited child prodigy with no living, human feelings, a spoiled brat, to be frank and thus his outlook had no value whatsoever. I have reservations about the use of the same word, socialism for both the new deal and Russell’s outlook but that can wait.
Reminds me of a letter from Einstein to a friend in which he described Russell as having to an advanced age the air of a “lausbub”, which I interpret as “street urchin”; it matches your own opinion of his manner as that of a “spoilt brat”.
Einstein added that in Russell’s science “the bad conscience shines through”. I do not think that is quite fair: it was Russell himself who discovered the “self-reflexion” paradox which undermined the basic premise that everything can be proved from a few basic axioms.
I think he lived in the self reflection paradigm of his mind’s mirror
Unfortunately this quite historically informative series is losing its punch and some credibility by being permeated by clear bias about development integrated models of human society and material resources, supporting so-called open model allegedly pushed by American capitalism while justifiably vilifying proponents of closed model of social development pushed by elites of British empire.
As I see it both models are deeply flawed, do not correctly describe attributes of human society and its dynamics and were concocted not freely in the midst of scientific research into sociology but were products of political expediencies in era of supposed enlightenment designed to make cruel and capricious even delusional rulers preoccupied solely with their own power and greed look moral, rational and deeply grounded in objective scientific reality.
That is how in an effort to “objectively” justify imperial exploitation of colonies and their native population, eugenics or in other words social engineering of demographic attributes as a (pseudo) science was concocted and formalized in academic realm, arbitrarily declaring masses as not quite human creatures of natural world to be subjugated like any other animal species by superior humans, intellectual elites who have moral duty and responsibility to control them.
Such a pile of intellectual bullshit, covering up material interests of elites, predating transhumanism was being spread in London’s high society meetings debating nature to justify pre-set genocidal policies of British empire against population of colonies as well against working people in Great Britain.
By why eugenics suddenly in later part of XIX century solicited frenzy of scientific interests and developments from many fields of science, from biology, to medicine, psychiatry to economy to mathematics and its branch of functional analysis operational research and optimization ?
Why did they frantically try to scientifically justify notion of inferiority of social consciousness and intellectual capabilities of masses and exaggerated dangers of their proliferation into numbers that could bring catastrophic depletion of natural resources on planetary scale and species extinction, including extinction of elite of Ubermensch, regardless of social development models adopted, closed equilibrium or open self consistently generated growth? Scientific elites in one voice proclaimed that culling was inevitable sooner and later.
The answer is simple. It was growth of socialist movement worldwide and spread of socialist ideas that most of all elevated historical importance of masses and diminished previously assumed as critical, role of elites and its superior intellect in historical process and Historiosophy driven not by chosen individuals or elites foresight and moral virtues but by socioeconomic imperatives.
Tables turned elites became obsolete in social development outlook to be eradicated as useless, irrelevant within new equal, equitable and egalitarian society of self determination, self governance and self sustainability free of shackles of class division imposed by elites. Confronting such powerful ideas, scientific and social elites’ concocted models and theories of society used to justify control over masses were under frontal ideological assault.
Science was prostituted in the past and it is today to serve fundamental psychological warfare support for vicious class war waged by global elites against masses of working class also via means of eugenics based genocidal policies.
It happened before and it happens now with willful destruction of economy under global change fear mongering, mass jabbing and Lockdown imprisonments ironically also peddled by phony leftist elites.
Interesting, but the rise of communism was never about elevation of the conditions of the proletariat. It was about equality of misery for the proles and the substitution of a new, usually geriatric, power elite.
First:
Growth of socialist movement became serious political threat to the power elites regardless of honesty or intention of socialist leadership. SPD, a leading member of Second International is a good example of such real challenge to status quo by corrupted socialist politicians that in fact killed Revolutionary aspirations of the party and caused it to weaken and later to split. Later KPD created in 1919 shared similar fate allowing another backed by big western capital charlatan A.Hitler to present himself as a supposed socialist, national socialist defender of working class by creating supposedly working class party called NSDAP explicitly anti Marxist party.
Did he raise standard of living of German proletariat? he did proving that it has nothing to do with what socialism is all about namely equality, equity and egalitarianism based self governed democratic society.
Better Standard of living can be achieved under any totalitarian regime. The Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia and imperial Japan are one of best examples of raising proletariat conditions within completely totalitarian regime with no shred of democracy as long as capitalism either market capitalism or state capitalism or mix form thrives making ruling elites rich, powerful, in full control.
Elites were scared of socialism whatever it meant because at best for them it would reject contemporary class system and ruling elites replaced with entire new regime regardless of what such new regime was to be democratic or autocratic.
Pseudo Marxists never advertised their planed sociopolitical dictate of ruling party the same way as pseudo libertarian capitalists never advertised their planed sociopolitical dictate of big Capital both in fact intended on running totalitarian regimes of full control.
Second: spread in mass media socialist ideas of equality, equity and egalitarianism in classless society by itself for the first time legitimized removal of previously considered inborn class privileges that were supposedly attributed to special innate characteristics skills and morality and high consciousness exclusive of elites and supposedly justified their enlightened rule.
Hysteria and anti socialist propaganda about ideas of socialism is as big as it was in XIX and hated by past as much much contemporary oligarchy because it is a key for dislodging usurpers of power and create self governed democratic socialist society .
If fiscal policy for public purpose functioned properly and government didn’t allow private bankers to manage public finance, there wouldn’t be any “need” for a corporate superclass and they know it. That’s why any heterodox economist who points this out and all who support them are immediately labeled “Socialist”, now on the list of domestic terrorists.
Tony Weston:
MMT is not Lefty. It’s not Righty. It’s not socialism, or capitalism, or libertarian.
It is a recognition of how things work. Once you know how things work, you realize:
Stuff said by Socialists, like “We need to tax the rich to pay for the NHS” is bollocks.
Stuff said by capitalists like “Money comes from business, trade and enterprise, and the government can only function with the tax we pay them”…. Is bollocks.
Stuff said by libertarians, like “It doesn’t matter if the government sends you a $600 check or a $2000 check, you’re still the one paying for it”. Is bollocks.
I know its bollocks, Many Professors of Economics know it to be bollocks. But while you believe it, it will let them get away with literally murder.
The government… the super rich, the oligarchy have pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes, to keep us all fighting, while they laugh while people die on the streets and the world burns.
You have to have a Conspiracy frame of mind… Over the years i’d heard of Adorno, Marcuse, etand others who were involved with the Frankfurt School, but not Tavistock Director Kurt Lewin ‘who became a leading figure of the Frankfurt School.’ So, knowing the unreliability of Wikipedia, i still looked up the entry for the Frankfurt School. Lewin is not listed, though ‘a leading figure.’ … I’m familiar with Dr Gregory Bateson’s work (aka experiments) with monkeys, but his MK Ultra involvement is news, so i’ll have to de-program myself to re-program my thoughts about him
“In the twentieth century, governments murdered, as a prudent estimate 272,000,000 men, women and children. It could be over 400,000,000.” Rudolf Rummel. The Blue Book of Freedom: Ending Famine, Poverty, Democide, and War.(7007) p.75 (cited by Gary D Bennet @ LewRockwel.)
And They did it for Us, To Keep Us Safe. Because They Know What’s Best For Us… Isnt that why people vote for politicians ?
The end result of these egotistical and disillusioned men (most of them are male), is the cruel and crazy world of ‘futurist’, Googles’s Ray Kurzweil . He says that with his miraculous AI, vaccine testing will be unnecessary (and cheaper). I can’t resist quoting his thoughts on the “next virus” being planned ….
“Amplifying progress in creating new medications for diseases is among the most profound near-term objectives of AI. Such technology will improve medicine for a vast array of diseases, but it will also be enormously valuable when the next pandemic strikes — whenever that happens. It might have a natural origin. It might be a terrorist bioweapon.
It might spread faster than Covid-19, and be 10 or 20 times as lethal. Deploying an effective cure in weeks instead of a year could save tens of millions of lives.” and I would add …’make even more billions for me and my mates’.
https://www.kurzweilai.net/wired-ai-powered-biotech-can-help-deploy-a-vaccine-in-record-time
He’s a grade one level psychopath. Seems many in the silicone bubble are.
I’m not totally anti-science. Without it we would not know that the world is round. The problem is not being able to circumnavigate it.
And where would we be without Newton? Without Newton some of us would believe that the the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by planes flying into them. Amazingly some qualified civil-engineers still believe this. They should be stripped of their credentials.
https://action.ae911truth.org/20th-anniversary-film
Well I guess it could be round, never been up high enough to see, neither has anybody else not in the military. Round like a globe though, science ?
Twin towers, planes,
Reset overdue, surely.
If the ‘scientists’ knew that the world was not a globe but flat, the role of science might have to be to ensure that we would never find that out because the resulting conclusion would inevitably be that we are in a created or simulated world and all attempts at controlling the masses would be futile. Sounds about right for where we are now I’d say.
You jest, or do you? Someone posted about a week ago in comments to an Off-Guardian article — I don’t remember which — a video or link to the YouTube channel of Jon Levi. I took the bait and got hooked by his beautifully made videos of architectural ruins and buildings of earlier times/civilisations and old maps, delivered in hypnotic, lugubrious tones with a complimentary classical music background track. Jon gently postulates in a non-dogmatic way some odd hypotheses which are challenging to my way of thinking, but I watch and listen with curiosity and delight. He seems to at least entertain the possibility that the Earth might be flat. I’m still in the Coppernicus camp, but Jon’s stuff is intriguing and fascinating, regardless of whether I might agree with his views.
Coppernicus as we know was regarded as a heretic by the scientific establishment of his day. Are not Covid-deniers, anti-vaxxers and climate-change-deniers the modern-day heretics; ridiculed, reviled and suppressed by the scientific hegemony? Science should always be open to question, challenge and debate.
Jon’s channel:–
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC5vXBfxN7rxKeJHJxS8dNDw
And wouldn’t you know it, SpyTube, knowing my viewing habits helpfully offered this definitive answer from JP Sears:–
He now gets censored there for for his heretical comedy and satire, These AI bots and algorithms have no sense of humour!
how does ‘jon,’ if that is his name, explain Galileo’s famous horseback trick (of tossing an object in the air and catching it, while riding in a straight line). If the Earth was flat, then it don’t rotate right?
The reason Galileo, or anybody, can toss an object in the air and catch it without stopping is because the Earth rotates right?
Can’t answer for Jon, or whatever his name is, and I’ve only recently discovered his channel so I hardly know him. My name isn’t Molybdenum either. You might like to ponder why I’d choose that moniker.
Before anyone points it out, Copernicus has one ‘p’ to his name; I gave him two. Maybe I was thinking in terms of chemical elements.
Nice to see someone on OffG who is “not totally anti-science”. Too many readers have succumbed to the fallacy of Guilt by Association. That said, it is astonishing to see so many scientists giving science a bad name by blatant careerism.
However, I would like to point out another, and less commonly cited, reason for mistrust of science among the general public; scientists come up with really weird ideas, ideas that are plainly contrary to common sense and common observation. For example:
One: Weird idea that the earth is not flat, which you mention. Anyone can see that “the earth is flat / Flat as your hat / Flatter than that!”.
Two: Weird idea that the earth is a sphere hanging in space, and there are people walking on the upside down side without falling off.
Three: Weird idea that the sun is a bigger than the moon.
Four: Even weirder idea the sun is bigger than the earth.
Five: Weird idea that the earth is millions of years old, and the bones which you find on the tops of mountains were once thousands of feet beneath the sea.
Six: Weird idea that men descended from apes.
Seven: Even weirder idea that apes descended from tiny creatures that lived in boiling sulfurous acid underneath the sea.
Eight: Weird idea that twins flying at different speeds or in different places will age differently.
Nine: Even weirder idea that separated twins can communicate with one another instantaneously across the universe.
Ten: Weird idea that the flu is caused by tiny invisible creatures.
Conclusion: Not surprising that many people are suspicious of scientists’ weird ideas. But the majority no longer find them appalling because most of these weird ideas have been around long enough to become incorporated into the public stock of “common sense”.
NickM, I appreciated your post but in giving it an upvote it registered a simultaneous downvote — very sorry, and wish it could be cancelled. I’ve noticed this before, which may expain the seemingly gratuitous or inexplicable downvotes that have been noticed by others here. I was even able to give multiple votes — accidentally — on one occasion. I don’t know whether it’s stubby fingers on a small screen causing this, but it’s clearly a flaw in the system. I don’t often vote on posts and this is a deterrent.
Now as an experiment I’m going to try giving several more upvotes to see if I can rig the vote: the current score is 1up; 1down. I’ll report back.
No, it recognised that I’d already voted and wouldn’t let me do it again. Shame it doesn’t recognise the two-way voting errors.
Glad to see 1 reader interested in scientists coming up with weird theories that persuade us not to believe what our own eyes.
Your up/down situation reminds me of another weird idea from science: quantum theory, that a thing can be in two mutually contradictory states at the same time. This idea is only 100 years old; too recent to have become accepted as common sense. I do not doubt that the practical success of quantum theory will lead to the idea becoming part of normal life. It seems that “superposition” of contradictory states” has decided to start with your vote above.
I first became confused and disconcerted in school Physics lessons by the contradiction between centrifugal and centripetal force, the latter superseding the former, we were told, though experience on a fast-moving roundabout which throws one outwards and off without clinging on feels only like a centrifugal force at work (though imperceptible when on a spinning globe, interestingly). Then we were introduced to quantum physics and I just couldn’t make that ‘leap of faith’ and gave up, concluding that advanced Physics was beyond my comprehension and was closer to a faith I couldn’t believe in. Though science-minded, I always question the current paradigm and am very aware of the corruption and fraud that has become endemic in the establishment, recently so blatant as to taint and discredit ‘Science’ for a very long time. Scientism has for now replaces Science.
Moly, I too used to wonder at those extra ticks but they were explained by Sophie Admin as updates of other people’s ticks appearing when one enters one’s own.
There were no planes. The truth movement was subverted to conceal the fact that the media was at the centre of the plot.
Coincidentally I re-read my copy of Hofstadter’s “Gobel, Escher, Bach” just a month or so ago and in doing so I was struck by just how antiquated some of the notions of the potential and reality of computing were by modern standards. This isn’t a reflection of the book being bad or wrong but rather an expression of how our knowledge has moved on in just 40 years or so. This article deals with a lot of older thinkers without reinforcing the idea that they’re a product of their time. This doesn’t mean that thinkers like Russel were necessarily wrong in what they were trying to express but rather that they didn’t have the knowledge or mental tools to connect the dots properly. Its quite likely that our ideas are going to seem similarly quaint in another generation or so, its just the way things are.
One thing is consistent through history, though. The idea of ‘secret masters’, of global government, conspiracies and even strange rituals among leaders isn’t at all new. Its been with us for centuries, possibly for as long as we have, and it seems to ebb and flow depending on how connected people are with the world around them. Arthur C Clarke came up with the perceptive notion that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” and in today’s world where our technologies have outstripped our public education its likely that we may ascribe unseen, dark forces are driving the world’s events. In that respect even QAnon is just a rehash of centuries old conspiracy theories, it only seems new because the people promulgating it are unaware of the centuries old material.
Science and math are not absolute truths, they’re ways we’ve developed to describe our world that allow us to manipulate it somewhat. We don’t teach these subjects well in our schools which means that only those who are predisposed to understand them — “have aptitude” — understand them. This doesn’t mean they’re impenetrable. Everything is really rather ordinary when you get to know it, its just there’s rather a lot to know and its difficult to know where to begin describing it. Even computers, logical machines that are currently getting the popular aura of thinking machines, are really just machines, they’re just this year’s clock or steam engine. Approached correctly, they’re just a thing that appears to be smart.
As for trying to cure society’s ills, that’s been going on for ever as well. We don’t need to go on about overpopulation or resource depletion. They’ve been known about for years. The fix is also obvious but always gets obscured because all solutions require us to alter the status quo, the way we think of and operate society which is anathema to ‘the powers that be’. Its a tough nut to crack because it requires those who are able to crack it to be the victims of their actions (i.e. you either have to eliminate the oligarchy or the surplus population — as a member of the surplus myself I’m not comfortable with being eliminated so its a bit of a stand off).
Or we can think like Julian Simon and believe there is no such thing as surplus population as long as man’s ingenuity is unleashed. Too many here think like Paul Erlich
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager
“Starting in 1945 and desperately in need to prevent the spread of the American System of Political Economy and an international New Deal that had been put into motion by anti-imperial president Franklin D. Roosevelt”
Again, that was the post WWII US-run New World Order, IMF, World Bank, dollar-based global system, a rapacious empire backed by the most power military that’s even existed, designed in steps starting in the early 1940s by the Council on Foreign Relations, which ran FDR’s “anti-imperial” foreign policy starting when he took office. Calling this “anti-imperial” is like calling the WHO the… World HEALTH organization. 🙂
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Trilateralism/NewWorldOrder_Trilat.html
Can you list a few of FDR’s imperial projects from the period of his presidency 1933-1945?
nothing new here:
“what is the heart but a spring”
Ah, the seventeenth century, The Age of Reason. Alas, also, the age of what Medaware called “Nothing buttery”:
you can feel the nano inside
when you get close to 5g mast phased array
you can feel the nano dancing
i can feel the blood brain breach
we are getting hit low level 24 and 7
when on a bus and you pass a fire station the 5g from the fire station hits a bus the bus is not faraday cage but pork inside microwave cooker
I didn’t feel nano,
just the buzz buzz buzz
buzz in the eardrum
awful really
well, it’s more ringing
and that’s why I drink
I love this article, for science to think it can explain everything by induction it needs the idea of a higher consciousness. So in effect the atheist scientists are similar to the religious. If we stop trying to induce higher laws to explain things, we have practical science… this is why I see quantum theory and other theories as problematic… It assumes a higher order of information https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/
Wow, the trolls are very active with the downvotes today.
I just assume those who downvote, without a reasoned response, lack sufficient critical thinking skills to formulate an inteligent retort.
On the bright side, if it provides an outlet for their confused outrage we have provided a service 🙂
Agreed. However, this also applies to upvotes. I’m guilty of that one myself: upvoting without explaining why. But then, if every upvote netted a reply, this forum would be impossible to navigate.
The only time I feel obliged to explain an upvote is if I don’t agree with the entire comment but with a major part of it.
I don’t know man, those people seem to be insane. I suppose you’d have to be to think of shit like that. Haven’t they ever sat by a lake and smoked weed with some friends? Or played in a 24 hour softball tournament in a field behind a tavern? Or camped out under the stars on an ocean beach? Or, I could go on, but they don’t seem to understand life. The more they try to understand life, the more they get away from it. What a waste.
That’s right, they don’t understand life. They are not prepared to live a simple but decent life in this reality and try to create a ‘better’ artificial life.
They’re psychopaths so no they haven’t. They think they know what we’re up to so they say ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy’ not realising that to be happy people need choice and the freedom to choose and randomness (I met my soul mate randomly and had the freedom to choose whether to go to watch the sunset with him or stay at home – I chose and he was the love of my life and I was happy). That’s how happiness works, you psychopaths. If you give us no choices and no randomness, we are battery hens and pigs in pens. Let’s see how that turns out (again – sigh!).
That’s it. They live in the cage of their brilliant minds, terrified of life which might crack the looking glass bubble of their tiny well defined world.
A closed system mentality is far from brilliant.
Not that it invalidates the central thesis of this article series but there’s more than a little of the thinking of Lyndon LaRouche and his disciples like Anton Chaikin in it.
Bear in mind that the LaRouche cult had a really wacky, extremely elaborate anti-British ideology. And, I would argue, it in itself could be credibly called an “op”– by whom would depend on what period of time one is looking at, as they were all over the map. The LaRouchies seem to have been a sort of political cult for hire. They would allege all sorts of really weird stuff, only some of which was true, in a barrage of information and disinformation kind of like a proto-Q Anon.
I kind of had a feeling my post would get a lot of down votes, but whatever. If people don’t care where their info is coming from, don’t want to consider the source, that’s their problem. Have fun with LaRouche, David Icke, Alex Jones, Q Anon, etc.
The LaRouche connection was exposed ages ago. Matt and Cynthia are propagandists for some very high income libertarian fascists who think they can bend the limitations of the planet by writing bullshit. Which, by and large, seems to be true. I just find it sad that libertarian fascism has gone completely, utterly, visibly, and terminally insane. And some seem to think the only cure is more libertarian fascism. By calling it “anti-propaganda.”
Re: LaRouche anti-British”
Thanks for the tip. I followed it up: it gets LaRouche an upvote from me, and gets you another well earned downvote. From Wikipedia:
“LaRouche has said that the dominant imperialist force today is not the United States but the “Anglo-Dutch liberal system” of the British Empire, which he asserts is an oligarchic financial consortium, more like a “financial slime-mold” than a nation. According to this theory, London financial circles protect themselves from competition by using controlled conflict, and LaRouche attributes many wars in recent memory to this alleged activity by the British.”
The idea is for humanity to be rid of all notions of soul and spirit and “think like cold computers” like it says in the article. But it doesn’t just apply to technocrats like Bill Gates and Co.
However, maybe it’s a Gate’s satanic vaccine that may fulfil Dr Rudoph Steiner’s prediction after all and also integrate human beings in a new mechanistic version of the cybernetic hierarchy of control!
Guess this post struck a nerve with the soulless ardent vaccine supporters. They can’t face up to it. Perhaps I should have said all notions of BODY soul and spirit instead. Since the European database of suspected drug reaction reports (EudraVigilance) has now reported 15,472 dead bodies and 1,509,266 vaccine injuries through June 19,2021 apparently from the 4 experimental vaccines listed: Moderna, Pfizer, Astrazenica and Janssen.
At school my body always went into shutdown mode during maths and sciences. this was the unverse communicating to me saying “AVOID AVOID”. It seems Ted Kaczynski was correct in his anlysis.
I like that Pablo. You’re obviously a man who thinks with the other side of his brain.
Both sides, the rational and the intuitive, strictly evenly balanced, is the only truly sane way.
“World Federation of Mental Health overseen by the Bank of England’s Norman Montagu and directed by the head of London’s Tavistock Clinic, whom Montagu directly appointed”.
Lord Montagu was the man who ordered Czecho-Slovakia’s gold reserves (stored in the BOE for safekeeping] to be handed over to Nazi Germany. Naturally, after the War, Montagu and his Tavistock underling’s World Mental Health “goal was to persuade the German people that Hitler’s rise to power was not to be found in international conspiracies or City of London/Wall Street manipulation…but rather in the authoritarian psychological-genetic disposition of the German people themselves.”
Yikes!
As I see it, scientists, mathematicians and philosophers should remain confined to their Ivory Towers for the duration of their lives. This, because they neither now have nor will ever have a proper understanding of the real world. They will forever see reality in terms of their theoretical constructs. “Reality is that which conforms to my theory of reality” will always be their guiding principle.
Furthermore, no system of thought, no matter where it originates, is adequate to encapsulate reality – even that small subset of reality called Human Society, which itself is in a permanent state of Triage. Fluctuation is more characteristic of reality – certainly of Human Society – than anything else.
What the Ivory Tower theorists attempt to effect upon reality is tantamount to trying to get a snapshot of the eye of a tornado from beneath it. Don’t expect the picture to reveal anything of tornadic significance.
The scientists who are obsessed with finding ultimate answers are very similar to religions that claim to have the answer.
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/
Howard
What you write is true enough: but conveyed through the medium of science, mathematics, but above all, philosophy. The Philosopher archetype was never alone in their Ivory Tower, but were themselves products of their age. The philosophy of which I speak is not a coherent system: but a cherrypicking of coherent (or incoherent) systems. Above all, the language is metaphysical. The idea there is a coherent view outside philosophy is the purest philosophification of reality. The reality principle is not duality, or even dualisable. To paraphrase Nietzsche and Wittgenstein: the whole of philosophy, theology, and mythology is embedded in the language. We can get rid of ‘god’; but then there is the grammar. Currently, the Pfizer/Moderna version of ‘scientific’ philosophy seems more appealing than taking on the legacy of the Philosopher. We live in an “uninhabitable philosophy.” We are the ultimate products of the “Dead Philosopher’s Society.”
Netflix founder Marc Bernays Randolph has a grand uncle Ed Bernays. Cute coincidence?
Watching 3 series / season in a day/period isn’t addictive !
it got a cool name Binge-watching.
its normal everyone does it we are told.
Bernays and his lot new how to get us to watch shit and binge watch it.
A wonderful accumulation of factoids to be sure thanks for it. However the continuing “woke project” of turning Fabian Socialists into Fascists seems to be gaining ground with this gross misinterpretation of the 20th centuries leading lights . The fact that their are now 8 billion and rising humans struggling to survive is the “success” of the Fabian view world view . Mr Ehret’s belief in Marxism as he defines it has made him a perfect example of cognitive dissonance , aka Sartre’s self deception .
I think you will find that the FS which was established in 1884, was a very different organization from the one which existed in 1900 after the South African wars. The original FS was composed of the Webbs, G.B.Shaw, with Sydney Olivier, Graham Wallas, Annie Besant and William Clarke making up the rest. They, the FS, were committed to socialism, but with a gradualist programme, sometimes called ‘Gas and Water’ Socialism. This was explained by a series of tracts which began with ”Why are the many Poor?” written by Sidney Webb.
With the exception of the Webbs and Shaw everyone else had left after the South African wars since the majority were against this blatant imperialism. Firstly the Zulu War in 1979 and then followed by the Boer War in 1899-1902. These events were to lead to an irrevocable split in the Society. The rump of the FS was to become dominated by Shaw and the Webbs who were openly imperialistic and something of a plaything of the British South African Chartered Company (BSACC). The FS began to attract some very dubious political elements including, H.G.Wells and Cecil Rhodes whose relationship with the BSACC was an open secret. BTW Russell was only a member for a very short period of time, Keynes was never a member: He wrote: ”The Labour party is a class party and its class is not my class.”
The other thing to bear in mind was the political milieux in England at the time including the Bloomsbury Group which consisted of Leonard Woolf who was a member of this and the FS, and who incidentally wrote the splendid ”Empire and Commerce in Africa” and his wife the novelist Virginia. Other notables included J.M.Keynes who hated socialism to his bones, E.M.Forster, Lytton Strachey, Edward Carpenter and various other members of cultural elite.
That’s the history, not very well understood I am afraid.
Whoops that’s 1879 not 1979
I agree that the Fabians are today not very well understood , but very useful to historical revisionists such as Mr Ehret and others of the various political stripes . They were a widely diverse group of elite thinkers whose general aim was to improve humanity through education and moderation whenever and wherever possible . At that they were tremendously effective , before the population bomb they helped construct while improving human conditions exploded circa 1950 . The collapse of the English Empire post WW2 saw the end of the Fabians and the rise of international materialism as a global religion that is crushing us today..
There have been some very earnest unreadable books dealing with that bunch of very dodgy people, an acquaintance of mine has un-lightened me on their extremely distasteful sexual practices with young, often very young unfortunates. Strachey even wrote a book in praise of it. You really need a mental haz mat suit on to contemplate them.
It’s quite a stroke of genius how the masses have been brainwashed, with many of the remaining having been directed down the rabbit hole of mRNA vacines, to prevent the inconvenient questions about what they are actually injecting people with. I don’t believe there ever was a coronavirus (it’s not even been isolated), this injection is purely a step to the transhumanism that the WEF are the mouthpiece for. Never realised how many retards I was surrounding by, that have willingly accepted an injection that doesn’t stop them ‘catching, transmitting, testing positive for, or dying from’, and they still think it’s about a virus! They’ll soon be connected to the ‘net’ though musk’s Starnet and 5g, mining biological crypto through Microsoft’s patent, at least the roads will be a little quieter once they’ve thinned out the useless ones..
Ray Kurzweil wants to install an Internet connection in our cortex’s using nanobot bio -mechanical means ? Read his book The Singularity , mRNA may be a form of nanobot experiment?
Kurzweil believes that soon, there will be no need for human trials to test vaccines. It will all be done in the blink of an eye by his miraculous AI (artificial intelligence) using simulated vaccines and simulated people. Does that give you confidence?
This man believes he will live forever by uploading his mind into a computing cloud. He makes other predictions on the future which are often wrong but phrased so vaguely that they can be interpreted differently.
You’d think his huge salary from Google would enable him to buy a better rug (toupee). See this …..
You’d think his huge salary from Google would enable him to buy a better rug (toupee).
Maybe he purposely had it made like that, to serve as a constant reminder to himself and anyone who sees his grotesque pate of the urgent need for ostensibly sentient hominids to evolve beyond their present physical forms ASAP.
There is also the option that he’s a liar and wouldn’t dream of having it done to himself but wouldn’t mind using you as his biological computer
He believes that A.I. will make him smarter, but actually it will make him more delusional and more separated from life. Artificial intelligence is no match to the natural intelligence of life.
Just treat him as the over-intellectualised fool that he is, and leave him to become a small footnote in future historiography. He’ll be lucky to get that; more than he deserves. Certainly doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously by us: the generation that’s even now undergoing the early times of the Long Descent away from hitech civ – away especially from anything as lunatic as Kurzweil’s childish sci-fi fever-dreams.
Kurzweil is not totally off the wall, there is already much reduction in the need for the use of animals due to the ability to leverage enormous amounts of data over decades covering thousands of compounds. This does not mean that computer simulations do not need to be verified, but it does mean that you can eliminate a lot of no-hopers without sacrificing animals.
However, I am always in favour of people like Kurzweil being the first to take new ‘medicines’, inadequately tested in real life. That way, if anyone is going to suffer from him being wrong, it will be him and his ilk.
Experimental Gene therapy to treat what is essentially the flu. And people are begging for it. If it wasn’t so extremely sad, it would be funny.
”Never realised how many retards I was surrounding by, that have willingly accepted an injection that doesn’t stop them ‘catching, transmitting, testing positive for, or dying from’, and they still think it’s about a virus!” Spot on!
But do they actually believe this or have they been panicked into believing it. I think that many do not actually believe this, because for example people have to work to get money to pay for life’s necessities, but – no jab, no job. More and more restrictive laws and policies are being rolled out which will further limit the populations room for manouvre, it is like watching a python having trapped a rabbit in its coils and slowly strangling the rabbit to death. How this will pan out is anybody’s guess.
These treatise are all very interesting, but is it not debating, naming, and counting the number of proverbial “parasitic angels on a pin head” ?
When the parasites fund, indoctrinate, coral, and utilise, the foundations of academic thought, to produce an army of academic shills to support the parasitic class philosophy, it seems impossible to wipe the pin head clean so as to enable a new foundation of academic thought, and a new dominant philosophy.
(paraphrasing MLK): rejecting “dialectical materialism… instead recognising that communism forgets that life is individual, Capitalism forgets that life is social… we must wipe the slate clean, and be born again”. The reader can take that “born again” analogy as a religeous connotation, or a wider connotation reflecting the whole worlds collective mindset as I do.
It can be argued it’s useful to recognise the pesonalities and mindset behind the why and how we got where we are, but it still leaves the as yet unformulated nebulous ideas of what we can do to change things at that level.
I guess that’s why the paracite class seeded and focused their “woke/cancel culture” at the foundations of academia, to divert and remove any and all unindoctrinated philosophy from the discourse.
I think this assumes a meaning for the word ‘cybernetics’ which is not its origional meaning, its origional meaning being more to do with control systems for engineering.
True, but the author reminds us that the Greek root Kubernos also gave us Governor. (I think the first mathematical treatment of automatic control was Maxwell’s article “On Governors”.)
Human or machine it’s all the same to me, Gov. My Governor’s a blooming machine and he treats me like one.
Mask of the Beast
Biblical bollocks
Predictable programming
Planet of Numpty
Hidden state child abuse
Anxiety through non- compliance
Mask of the beast
No life
Jumping at your shadow
Breathing is living
Where is your ode to joy?
Your song, your smile
A world of sick notes
Anonymous porno characters
Wandering around
As brain damaged zombies
In Brownian motion
Presstitutes words are piss
So I am a duck
But not sitting in denial
I laugh and sing
Flying in rebellion
Not in fear
Fear is the heart killer
But in love
Your choice
Your life
Great poem. Thank you.
“the shape of physical space-time had a living, creative character.”
Space is an absence and time a human construct. How can the union of the two produce anything living or creative? The whole Einsteinian paradigm is a nonsense, propped up only by the invention of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’. There has to be an aether despite Einstein’s attempt to aobolish it. How do light or sound waves travel through the vacuum of space? Their science has been quietly trying to smuggle the aether back in under alternative names like “the quantum field” or “the Higgs fiels” hoping nobody will notice. Alternatively, one must believe that light travels as a particle through space and then somehow changes to a wave when it hits the atmosphere. Or it’s the idea that space is a vacuum is where the fault lies…. Again, this isn’t “anti-science but a reversion to what older scientists had believed for centuries until science was steered, whether by accident or design, down a giant blind alley.
Russell’s paralleling with Newton – combined with the British’s establishment’s worshipping of Newton – should be a red flag that there’s something up with that narrative (plus Newton’s alchemy and mercury-drinking). Gravity is a house of cards when one looks into it. Where’s the proof mass attracts mass? Science doesn’t even try to claim that’s what gravity is now and they now promote the even more laughable idea that gravity is bendy space-time. There clearly is a downward accelerative force but it isn’t “gravity”. Electro-magnetism is much more plausible.
“One of the most enthusiastic practitioners of this new system during this period of transformation was Pierre Elliot Trudeau”
The Quebec Crisis in 1970 stinks of an orchestrated false flag. Trudeau used it to both discredit the genuine peaceful Quebecois movement and justify a massive clampdown on civil liberties (somewhere between Covid and internment in its nature). It looks very like the Canadian branch of Gladio.
“we sought the help from the anthropologists Doctors [Gregory] Bateson and Margaret Mead”
A useful reminder that anthropology is one of the most compromised disciplines. They study cultures to learn how to undermine, manipulate and ultimately destroy them. See David H. Price’s ‘Weaponising Anthropology’ for its modern manipulation. Mead was a complete fraud – her most famous work about the supposed open sexuality of Pacific islanders was faked, both to justify her own infidelity and to smash up the institution of marriage.
“the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman”
Norman was a Theosophist. It’s one of the many examples that the self-professed elite, while selling a world stripped of metaphysics to everyone else, have some highly metaphysical beliefs behind the scenes.
What the ‘elite’ really wants is an artificially created paradise for themselves.
So, they create a situation where they can control and exploit everything (nature and human beings).
It is a battle between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence.
Most people though are not interested in the natural intelligence.
If our puny senses are any example biologically based aka natural intelligence has reached its limits . Cellular “life” is unstable constantly dividing and dying mutations are a constant of this process. Transhumanism , extinction , or devolution seem to be our choices ?
Life (which is not the same as nature) has no limits, but nature and our body have its limits. If you (not you but people in general) are not willing to live within these limits (in a natural way), problems and misery are the result.
Trying to fix these problems/miseries with artificial intelligence is interesting but will fail in the end.
Devolution towards another dark age has already been chosen for us, by the much-stronger-than-human ecogeophysical processes we’ve set going by demanding too much of the Earth’s mineral endowments, and of its life-support systems. We could have chosen differently whilst there was still time to change course. But we couldn’t be arsed, and now it’s baked in. Wise people are now skilling and educating themselves for life on the downslope, away from peak everything. Neo-subsistence farming is a good bet, but it takes time to get good enough at it to survive. “Collapse early, and avoid the rush!” – JMGreer.
Bollocks, McDoughnut.
“How can the union of the two [Space-Time] produce anything living or creative?”
I dunno, it just does. “We are made of stardust”. The most intriguing book I never read carried the title, Creative Materialism.
Another of Trudeau’s accomplishments- he created Canada’s national debt. The St. Lawrence Seaway, pre-Trudeau was constructed with government credit and accrued no national debt. Trudeau, the good Communist began the practice of borrowing from private banks resulting in a huge national debt with loads of interest growing exponentially. That’s the way to do it.
It is the difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence.
The scientists/elite want to create an artificial harmony (balance) meaning that human beings have to be controlled (by A.I.).
‘Individuals’ can and have to choose between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence. It’s not an easy choice. Most people are not interested in the natural intelligence.
Individuality may be a product of consciousness aka becoming self aware ? At the moment taking a bite of the Apple of Knowledge urged on by his second wife Eve and pet snake may be the analogy to the mutation that is consciousness leading us our coming extinction .
Individuality does not exist. It is the (artificial) product of society (culture).
It tells ‘you’ that ‘you’ have to become an individual. It’s just an illusion.
Being an integral, inseparable part of the great flow of the Tao is a much more realistic conception. (That’s “the Tao which cannot be spoken of”, btw. 🙂 )
Individuality is an illusory product of self awareness aka consciousness to claim it does not exist within our reality is a form of Nihilism ? Nihilism of course being the ultimate form of hubris
Well, 100% for effort and research.
The whole narrative rolls out as a souless, heartless sterile world of dead particles bumping into each other as a foundation of this…philosophy? More like ideology, sort of warping themes and ideas to fit into the mold of misanthropy.
However none of these Elites or Ubermenschen with their insanity can explain the mindless compliance and shocking lack of critical thinking in todays Western Society.
Over and over again we could take all these idiots, the whole lot of them from WEF to all Members of the CFR, BIS, WB,,, put them on Bikini Island and nuke them off the face of the earth. Given enough time the very same psychopaths’ would re emerge and go back at it, almost like the 99% beckon them back into existence
it still does not solve the problem amongst the rest of the 99%/ sheeple where the answer lies.
It does not solve the issue of human laziness where comes to thinking , ignorance and fear
So it comes back down once again to the core issue, its a spiritual problem.
Closing with this statement
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
and a more modern version of this
Where there is love there is no fear
Where there is fear there is no love but will to power
Where there is will to power , fear and mistrust predominates, love cannot thrive
They are like oil and water, mutually exclusive
To fully love, means to have the courage to love and be loved completely
and from the Tao De Jing
formulated in a different manner
When walking about does not meet threats of danger.
In battle, is untouched by the warrior’s weapons.
Not aiming at life –
Has no points of vulnerability,
– For the horns of the buffalo to pierce.
– For the claws of the tiger to tear.
– For the weapons of the warrior to enter.
He is beyond mortality.”
This implies a certain ” trust” in the process we call Nature, characteristic of Eastern thought.
Wow, this was exactly the conversation my partner and I had this morning. He believes the reason for what is happening is a low level of consciousness in humanity. I agreed with him and added that a few individuals with higher consciousness but no empathy and in service to self are easily able to guide that majority into darkness. But ultimately, we are responsible for what is happening on this planet.
I believe the ‘sheeple’ problem can be explained through the concept of narrative belief. Such are the distractions of modern society – in which people like to engage – that they need simple narrative belief systems about the nature of the society we live in. Active government and corporate promotion of particular narratives thus find fertile ground as they relieve people of the need to think too much for themselves and therefore doubt some of the assumptions they have relied on. Basically, these narratives require little individual energy to sustain. It always surprises me how aggressive people become when these belief narratives are challenged. The most open people seem to me to be those that genuinely do think for themselves as well as those to whom spiritual quests are important.
You are right, it boils down to a kind of mental “laziness”. Most people are begging for simple explanations of the world, and of course the elite is ready to push and provide those easy to digest narratives. Until the 99% wake up intellectually, we, the actual thinking part of the 99%, are stuck in limbo.
The word ‘love’ is a meaningless four-lettered word. It implies division and keeps it in place.
This he said to me
“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn
Is just to love and be loved in return”
From “Nature Boy”
Empty words.
Then give your full attention and move beyond judging words!
I’m just describing the situation exactly as it is.
The ‘you’ that thinks it is describing, is generated by a description that can be definition never be what is.
While you love your description as if it is reality, you have your reward or experience.
Because maggots eat dead flesh does not mean they eat a living body. You can see all that is called love that is masking in forms assigned or associated with love and point out their error, as if the love of truth belongs or is set by your description, but this is because the fear of love as an undoing of the ‘face’ and control of description or judgement as a private autonomy, is threat or death to such a sense of identified or loved self.
Fear of love must become hate to love and must seek out and attack all that does not conform to or comply with its narrative dictate. This attack is denial, distancing, and masking lockstep set against the living, for the sake of a system of defence.
Because ostensibly founded in the idea of self-protection, it has a sense of self love. Insofar as it needs allies and reinforcement, it extends identity to others and to conditions of coded compliance.
It is the machine in the Ghost that knows not what it does, because it is predicated on denial, dissociation and forgetting of love.
It does so by mentalised, emotion backed substitutions, socially and personally defended against disclosure.
You may be trolling by intent or be-live your current perspective, but I offer perspectives you, and anyone reading can take or leave according to the movement of love that IS awareness, attention and conscious intention – to a freedom of knowing ourselves love in the very movement or unfolding of being.
There are no strings attached. But what you give sets the measure of your receipt, so if you are invested in definitions and beliefs, they will operate to form or structure your experience until re-evaluated.
Narrative continuity and relational entanglements or honouring commitments.
Jesus, Tom, you’re going to have a bit of a heavy time the next time you go to the bardo for your next karma de-briefing… 🙂
Karma is not what you think it is. 🤗
You can use the word self the same. What we mostly use for self is self image and much of what we use for love is a manipulative masking of self image.
Perhaps what you understand by ‘love’ is meaningless and implies division?
Please share your preferred terms for meaningful unifying resonance and recognition!
Love is the capacity to be with what is to the point of recognising truth.
You will never know the ‘truth’ as life is a living truth. Thought is not the instrument to understand life. It is a dead instrument.
All words are meaningless and can only be used for simple communication in this reality.
You render your own witness worthless?
Taking thought for yourself is not needed to be all that you are.
Thought can be differentiated as Living Thought and dead concept.
The mind can serve the Heart, but the Heart’s apparent sacrifice to mindset is Life set in reversal.
Your thought has all the indications of being ‘right’ over and against other’s wrong.
Love is always maximal, but in this ‘reality’ experience, that is not obvious.
Love Is communication, but code running in binary mental defences is the fallacy of transcending human limitation by denial, destruction and replacement of Communication with a weapon – such as truths are subverted to by such intent.
Life knows its Own. I call this love as well as whatever terms serve the Communication.
Are you the High Priest of a special god?
Or are your choice of symbols ‘better’ than those that serve others in their love and life?
Dead concepts reveal themselves in joylessness and ivory towers.
Yes, my own words are worthless. They won’t help you as you don’t need any help.
What life is you will never know.
Thought is the intruder. It can only create problems and not solve the problems. You use thought to achieve a goal, a material or spiritual goal. If you don’t do that life will express itself in its own unique way.
To call it love is misleading.
I said worth not help.
Love is resonant recognition, not fixing a problem.
How can thought cannot intrude.
By what power or means?
How can thought create?
What is thought?
How can you know that you know or how to know you can never know?
I see thoughts align to unfold fulfilment, not as a means to get something for a sense of lack.
Love has no need but to give or extend itself.
Even this is not really a need but a Law or Nature.
You can only mislead those who choose to be misled with you or regardless of you.
Context is everything in defining the meanings being shared or shared in. You may choose to use symbols differently. That is your freedom. Telling everyone to do likewise is giving limitation. How can you then escape your own giving?
You are of course welcome to hold whatever meaning or lack of meaning as true of you and live your result.
But to not accept yourself as you are is to accept a ‘something else’ that will seem to be in conflict with or unsupported by reality.
Relational acceptance free of demand allow the qualities of love to rise of themselves. It is true that such qualities do not wait on being called by name to reveal their nature. But they are not recognised until there is free willing acceptance of their nature as your own.
Fo love does not oppose, and while you accept ‘something else’ love waits on willingness, not on time.
Thanks for sharing something of yourself.
I don’t regard you as engaging in worthless or meaningless acts.
But seeking to warn against being misled.
Which is an expression of love or worth accorded another.
We do not live by denial of our world, but through its transparency to being, is it obvious that no thing in itself, is, nor think can be, apart from the awareness of its moment.
The content is always of a context, That we cannot know in any conventional sense is the release of what we thought to know to what we are. Awareness of existence is within knowledge, and so we cannot understand that we know. The mind is stilled, yet reflects the field of relations.
Thought can be assigned the role of the intruder!
By forgetting, hiding or masking over the word by which we call it forth.
That a substitution for love is set in mask of virtue is an intent to mislead or pass off as worthy, in evasion of a fear of lack.
Such a mind can hide its fear, or mask a loveless agenda.
As power over life is fear of pain and loss in death.
Yet look at the thought, instead of using and being used by it, and recognise what truly is from what is not.
Thought can hypnotise the mind that wants to follow it. But has no power of its own.
”However none of these Elites or Ubermenschen with their insanity can explain the mindless compliance and shocking lack of critical thinking in todays Western Society.” yup!
They participate in the enactment of victim and perpetrator, as control set over fear. There’s no love in it. But only self-gratifictions given worship.
If we give worth to what is in itself worthless, we participate in loveless ‘creation’ that does not actually create, but limits and divides by deceits given power.
One of the problems with these ‘retrospective analyses’ (aka historic writing) is that the author either consciously or subconsciously gives too much credit to a set of fraudsters and swindlers who act as a team to fool and cage society as a whole.
Yes, it’s good to see the name of particularly Russell here, and his name here does explain to me for instance why he did write that the best thing that could happen with society is if it would change into one big house where everyone controls everyone (somewhere in his book ‘in the praise of idleness’ where he talks about architecture). Society as one big prison, that was apparently Russell’s dream.
But Russell was already challenged in his own time, most notably by Wittgenstein, who demolished his Principia Mathematica and who said (in his later writings) that the prinicipia Mathematica was Russell’s only good writing (and still demolished by Wittgenstein) and that all his political books were a total set of bollocks.
What I want to say is that this expose on a bunch of fraudsters who consider themselves as philosopher kings too much expresses the notion from the fraudsters that their tricks did and do work for time eternal. They didn’t work and they don’t work even not in their own time as I tried to add in with Wittgenstein’s notion on Russell. It’s like a dream that the fraudsters may have even believed in themselves (the best liars believe in their own lies as if they are true) but for which an outsider who listens to such stories can only answer: ‘and then you woke up?’
It’s good to see that it’s not new, that 100 years ago or more there were Klaus Schwabs too. And that their plans didn’t work out.
Now they have the technology to create their artificial balance.
So, they think they can do it now, but I agree that in the end the plan will fail.
Right, they have more technology, while the complexity they have to manage and the opportunities to slip up are correspondingly greater. What hasn’t changed is human nature and the scope for fooling a lot of people, at least for a time.
That’s true. I expect (in the short term) a split in humanity. Most will have themselves guided by the artificial intelligence and some will refuse.
So, what will happen to the ‘refuseniks?
Will they be allowed to have their own communities or will they be destroyed?
We will all live in Gaza.
Yes, a ghetto that will be destroyed after awhile. So, be prepared to leave in time.
Wittgenstein was of the same ilk as Russell I liked them both in my youth . Their arguments were erudite and well beyond our 21st century interpretation ? You make the same assumptions and errors as the author , viewing history as something to be used and interpreted to be made useful to your current political beliefs. Read Russell’s Metaphysian’s Nightmare or even Arthur C Clarkes Childhoods End instead of embracing Materialism ?
“[Eugenicists] organized a concerted program to eliminate the sickness of national patriotism, belief in truth, and family love throughout the Cold War period.”
And also throughout the Colds War period, as OffG can testify.
It all makes sense. It’s easy for humans to behave as sheep when there are rewards like propagandistic, govt-sanctioned approval.