Transforming Trajectory

ConCen Blog Feature

By mothandrust
The Conspiracy Central Blog
Monday, July 30, 2007

 

Transforming Trajectory

I

 

So the NWO has been thrown from power – now what?

I know at ConCen there are many people who talk of the New World Order (NWO) – of secret groups behind the scenes manipulating the geopolitical and geoeconomic agendas – Illuminati, Mason, Zionist, Gnostic… conspiracies abound. I am not denying the existence of these groups, or their motivation, nor indeed the amount of control they have (or think they have), far from it.

However, my position is that, far from being the NWO, they are in essence identical to the order that has governed civilisation since there was civilisation. The labels may have changed and the societies/institutions/families morphed, strengthened along the way but their motives, objectives and methods remain absolutely consistent back through the ages: Bush, Blair, Murdoch, Rothschild are no different to Hitler, Churchill, Beaverbrook, Rothschild or the royal families, princes, popes, caesars… as an ever repeating pattern. It is, in effect, a continuous line that stretches back to the Pharisees and money-changers in the Temple, and beyond. All, without exception, manipulating power (including the value of money) to service their aims and enhance their position. Civilisation, pretty much since its inception (and ignoring pre historical suppositions), has been controlled and manipulated by people who abuse power. Fact. NWO, same as the OWO, to my way of thinking.

Further, you cannot vote in a change of direction. Anyone voted in has been constructed by and has an interest in validating, strengthening and expanding that same system – nor can you have a partial collapse, with fragmented groups, as they will attempt to rebuild their power bases, expanding as quickly as possible to capitalise on the vacuum that has been created – and, in the process, rebuilding the machinery of war – in effect, we would be no better off than before.

The point I am making, the question I am asking, is, that following our current mindset, even if some great upheaval were to happen and all current economic and political power holders were thrown from office, with what will we replace them to stop history repeating itself?

As things stand, following current trajectory, whatever replacement system, no matter who/what is put in charge, power will concentrate and in the process, lead to its abuse – totalitarianism or democracy, it makes no difference. Is history not my witness?

Or course there is another journey through history, that of powerful religions and nations and groups of people uniting under a symbol and obliterating weaker, less advanced (in the nature of warfare) cultures. Accepted, we cannot bring them back, humanity has moved on, however, just because their thinking did not suit the interests of powerful men, with guns and with obedient sheep to do their bidding, does not mean we have nothing to learn from them.

*

Quite frankly, i am at a loss to know how one overthrows our current power base – they have all avenues stitched up. That is not where I’m coming from. What interests me, is how humanity, once removed from the chains of conceptual authority, might engineer a happier, more equitable world, immune to the machinations of our psychopathic tendencies.

II

If we are considering a way to transform the trajectory of humanity we must look for a new beginning, swept clean of all control structures or power bases – brands, states, religions, money… – conceptual authority must be swept into the dustbin of history. In fact, beyond family, in the widest possible sense/conception, nothing can remain.

So let us imagine this is so. A terrible cataclysm has struck the Earth – global communications along with finance have collapsed – money has become meaningless and as a consequence all transportation is stopped. As money disappears so does government, leaving people to fight over the three days food in the supermarkets. Mayhem. Devastation. Kill or be killed. Mad Max on push-bikes, because fuel will disappear at least as quickly as food. Plague spreads through the remaining population with the collapse of health and environmental control systems, with the dead littering the streets and rivers and our immune systems shot to pieces through decades of antibiotics and sterile environments. Let us not dwell on this matter, it is entirely hypothetical, let us just say, a catastrophe of biblical proportions. And assuming meltdown of nuclear reactors or some genetic modification from beyond the realms of science fiction has not engulfed us in some way, the shattered remnants of humanity would emerge from their hiding places, to start again, from scratch.

Remember, with the decimation of humanity, space is no longer at a premium. True, with poisoned soils, polluted rivers and little protection from nature, in its rawest form, life will be far from easy (mortality rates will be high) but beyond that, if humanity can find a path, lies a whole new world. A blank slate, with more than enough for everyone.

So, as these humans, chastened by apocalyptic events, start again to develop communities, devoid of religion, state, money… what ideologies, philosophies should govern their future journey?

*

Let us first note the foundations of the system that preceded the cataclysm, foundations beyond nature and family, with no ethical validity – therefore, no more than opinion.

  1. Land ownership. Rousseau argued that ‘land ownership’ was the origin of inequality, imposed by an impostor, who stuck four stakes in the ground and found someone foolish enough to believe he ‘owned’ it. In fact, ‘land ownership’ is an aberration, a logical impossibility. For, pleasing though it is to deceive oneself otherwise, one cannot own one’s host. One is indebted to one’s host – enslaved, without knowing, just as a bacterial culture in our gut. Native cultures acknowledged this, it is the arrival of the ‘enlightened’, arrogant Europeans that sort to prove otherwise and in the process carve the world into country and property shaped pieces. Making it ‘theirs’, to own and to do with as they wished.

  2. Intellectual property. Patent and copyright, designed to protect and hide knowledge and creativity, rather than share. To concentrate power in the hands of the ‘owners’, give them control over future direction – to enable capitalisation.

  3. The state. An arbitrary border, signifying conceptual ownership, and enslavement through identification. And, as with ‘land ownership’, offering no ethical justification, and illegitimate in the eye of religion (at least until 1648 when the Roman Church made their deal with the European princes).

  4. Money. Although money floats, light as a feather, above our economic system it was not always so. Our understanding of money and how it works finds its roots in gold and jewels, finite, precious materials that only few have access to – necessarily concentrating wealth as those who own it dictate value (as with land). And, in fact, although the value of money appears relatively stable, if we measure it against land as a constant (or gold) we see in actuality it’s relative value spiralling downwards (to a point where, in the UK at least, your average dwelling is worth many times its own weight in silver!).

  5. Capital interest. This again is a mechanism which reduces the value of money in relative terms – as money in the system increases, its buying power diminishes – and it is a one way process. Capital interest, through the eye of religion is an absolute sin – in Islam, worse than adultery and punishable by death.

All of these ideological structures, although entirely arbitrary, concentrate power, provide a method of division and subjugation, and facilitate and provide the process by which authority can extend, enhance its conceptual power.

*

So let us imagine humanity (what’s left of it) emerging from the forests and caves that have given protection through the cataclysm – and beginning to develop communities and cultivate the land. Which of the above concepts offers any benefit to these shattered remnants?

  1. Land ownership. Although, upon first glance, this might seem desirable, let us first reiterate the conceptual problems with this. First, much as one might wish otherwise, one cannot own one’s host, one is fundamentally and irrevocably enslaved to it, for sustenance and security, it is therefore a logical impossibility, a conceptual error. Secondly, land is now plentiful – if it is not, we have not come far enough – perhaps there are a few bullets left, perhaps disease/plague/pestilence must sweep the planet once more. And thirdly, land ownership creates haves and have-nots, an imbalance, initiating the path to slavery and dominance. This is not of course to say, that one who tends and cultivates land should not be entitled to its produce, far from it.

  2. Intellectual property. Imagine emerging from such suffering and torment, gradually rebuilding families and communities, working the land, shaping its products, honing instruments and techniques developing cross strains… and imagine families, communities across the world doing the same. Similar discoveries will be made far and wide, all through independent thought and modifying existing design, gleaned from neighbours, travellers, communication, fertilisation… all offering path and potential to filter out and filter in to and from an emerging humanity. Music and art and cultural evolution follow the same pattern. Ideas spread and generate new ideas. Who in their right mind, in such a situation, would wish to see rules and regulations and ownership of individual ideas and mechanisms, necessarily stifling knowledge, generating secrets and fear, and cheating and protection? Who would wish to give away the freedom to discover?

  3. The state. Imagine you have built a functioning community, worked out methods of exchange with other emerging communities and you are gaining mastery of tools and techniques. A sense of empowerment will gradually build, life will no longer seem brutal, fragile and fleeting, and begin to become a pleasure. What more does one need? Who in their right frame of mind in such a situation would ever wish to surrender this empowerment to some would-be tyrant who falsely believes he can have others serve him? Him and his cronies and his leeches.

  4. Money. An exchange mechanism, something that represents work or commodity – the value of. Through history there have been many examples, before we settled on tying money to gold – rare stones or shells and even crops. Authority, before all land was devoured most particularly hated the idea of crops as money. As it meant, by the sweat of their brow, individuals could grow their own money – thus distributing power, rather than concentrating it. Authority prefers something more theoretical, conceptual yet at the same time manageable, tangible and concentrated. For them gold is the best of all methods – almost the rarest known metal, almost entirely useless – and it means, no matter how far the world economy expanded, with gold as the exchange mechanism, they effectively own it all! In truth though, any community can create its own money, it just needs anchoring to that community’s primary produce and all will understand its true value – just as they would when exchanging their money with other communities. If requirement of some global benchmark, then that should fall to the most adaptable and useful crop known to humanity. This is of course, hemp – the method many European settlers used in the American colonies, until the British crown and the mercantile elite got wind of it. Tying money to crops also destroys the notion of inflation, although that is not to say value would not fluctuate depending upon utility and abundance.

  5. Capital interest. With money grounded in crops, renewables, its value is real and fixed, and because in time crops deteriorate, hoarding is detrimental, counter-productive, which leads to natural flow of supplies and surpluses. No hoarding. No hoarding means no capturing and controlling the market, it means no price manipulation – value is as it is, only, through time, deteriorating as this or that wears out or rots. It is the antithesis of interest.

So here we have a basic functioning system – no need for taxes or accountants, politicians or wars (land is still plentiful). Emerging communities appreciate communication: sharing ideas, expertise and produce brings benefits and understanding to all those involved. So far so good, but it will be just a few generations before humanity again begins to eat up all available space and consequential tensions arise. That, without some overarching authority, will necessarily lead to dispute, and then on to war.

What is to be done?

Now, with an ideological framework that offers the logical and ethical validity that our current model lacks, that disperses power, thus empowering the individual and encourageing communication: how, before humanity again falls prey to fear and hunger, violence and despotism, can we develop a control system that will not in itself fall prey to the psychopathic elements that would abuse the world for their trivial pleasure?

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. Mothandrust,

    Isn’t the scenario you propose, after a “catastrophe” or whatever, just like the conditions leading up to the development of civilisation in the first place?

    What happens if the quality of arable land is affected? Your abundance of food and land disappears right there. So humanity is back to conflict to get the best land to grow crops and raise families. Also, land isn’t plentiful, it never has been!! It’s only the use of modern technologies (like agriculture, irrigation and fertilizers) that have enabled us to utilise the marginal lands.

    The argument you propose is extremely short sighted and naive. Surely society is a reflection (on a large scale) of human nature. Your ideas about intellectual property and copyright are totally skewed as well. For example, why should I let you use one of my ideas when I could SELL you that idea for food or land and then I have more to feed and support my family with?

    Why not go back and think about it a little bit longer and maybe take your arguments to their logical conclusions?

  2. Dear Quan Hater GB,

    thank you for your comments. First let me say, i’m not saying i have all the answers, i am putting forward ideas, hoping for feedback with which i can modify, hone those ideas, and at the same time challenge perspectives about what have become cast-in-stone parameters, namely ownership and exchange.

    To answer you points individually,

    “Isn’t the scenario you propose, after a “catastrophe” or whatever, just like the conditions leading up to the development of civilisation in the first place?”

    Yes my scenario has similarities to the birth of humanity, but with some important differences. Firstly, humanity came from a single source, as far as geneticists would have us believe, the Bible (to my way of thinking) confirms this with Adam and Eve. Secondly, at the birth of humanity (depending upon how one defines this) we could at best have developed only the most rudimentary (spoken) language, and perhaps harnessed fire.

    “What happens if the quality of arable land is affected? Your abundance of food and land disappears right there. So humanity is back to conflict to get the best land to grow crops and raise families. Also, land isn’t plentiful, it never has been!! It’s only the use of modern technologies (like agriculture, irrigation and fertilizers) that have enabled us to utilise the marginal lands.”

    Well, as alluded to in my post, although perhaps i did not make it clear enough, if land is still in short supply, we have not come far enough and humanity will rebuild upon similar lines, with violence and despotism, as frightened ignorant people cling to some charlatan who promises security and supremacy. As to your second point, “ land isn’t plentiful, it never has been”, this is patently nonsense, land issues did not raise their head until perhaps 10,000 years ago, as humanity flourished, having mastered (a few) gifts of nature. Utilising ‘marginal’ land is something that comes very late in the development of humanity.

    “The argument you propose is extremely short sighted and naive. Surely society is a reflection (on a large scale) of human nature. Your ideas about intellectual property and copyright are totally skewed as well. For example, why should I let you use one of my ideas when I could SELL you that idea for food or land and then I have more to feed and support my family with?”

    I’m not doubting the naivety of my arguments – particularly as offered to products of our current violent, greedy system. As for short sighted – this seem particularly ironic, considering i am talking in terms of generations, and the furthest our current political leaders can see is the next election or the next power grab. Ah, ‘human nature’ sounds to me like you are a Hobbesian sort of guy, of course the problem with Hobbes is he does not understand the difference between human nature and genetic urge, all life is driven by fear and hunger, right down to a bacterial level, it is only through developing sexual identity, family structures, communication, social interaction, that we achieve something even approaching human nature. You offer the standard justification from authority for the legitimacy of patent and copyright, it is, as i said, no more than opinion, an opinion that says it is better to profit from than to share. I refer you you the Bible, most particularly the words of Jesus, but any religious text will do, if you want to see in which way the ethical compass swings. Your way leads to secrets, cheating, mistrust… imbalance, mine offers openness, sharing, mutual benefit… harmony.

    “Why not go back and think about it a little bit longer and maybe take your arguments to their logical conclusions?”

    This is all pretty arrogant. If you read and understand the piece you will see the logical conclusions i predict without some form of control, create a world just as violent and unbalanced as the one we have now. What i am trying to generate is ideas on how we might stop the same thing happening over and over again. You are offering no ideas just validation.

    Are you sure Quan Hater is a good name – it implies your own ignorance (see Sun Tzu), it also creates an air of importance for Hei Hu Quan.

    Big hugs,

    mothandrust


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s