What are powerful people doing about really powerful people?

[thepainterdoug]

There is no reason for me to name names here, you all know who they are , or at least you can fill in the blanks yourself. You will know some that others will not. 

They are the many really powerful people such as world figures, politicians, people of ungodly money, some with fame ,while others remain in the shadows that are charting the course for the rest of us.

They share the desire to control others, the masses, without our best interest, and can dictate actions and policy, legal or not, onto everyone else. 

These controller people are insulated from reality and so not at risk of harm of their decisions to themselves or their families .
No risk of involvement of war or any fallout of what they themselves put into action.
Yet they are happy to risk all others.


My question is;  What are the many other good, well-intentioned, rich and powerful people of caring positions doing about them? Why don't they step in and end it?

I think we can all understand that we the common people, have little to no actionability regarding these controllers.
But where is the dividing line? 
How could the golf course owner, the sports team owner, the many corporation CEO,s and so on who have families, sons, daughters, allow everything they built to be destroyed ?
Where is the dividing line between people of high stature, prominence and influence, from these power monger controllers?

I dont see a dividing line?  I don't understand who has to accept all this and fall in line behind these drastic measures and allow all this?  A one world Government, a Marxist system, no meat, no gas cars, cash money 15 minute cities , surveillance, and censorship

Who is spared and by what mechanism? Who gets a pass, and who decides?
pd

[Satori]

Thanks for the thoughtful post Doug.

If I may—The dividing line has been intentionally blurred over many decades and more, such that the people you describe who are, by your hypothesis (as I understand it), not involved in the planning and design of the destruction, but who immensely benefit from it, do not see themselves as part of the problem. Thus, they are not motivated (although they should be in good conscience) to step in and end it. They don’t see the “it” the way you (rightfully and correctly) do. Plus, they think they are so rich, powerful and bullet proof that they have concluded that have no reason to put what they “have” at risk by making waves.

Also let us not forget, many are just downright narcissistic psychopaths.

[Miller]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
My question is;  What are the many other good, well-intentioned, rich and powerful people of caring positions doing about them? Why don't they step in and end it?

An interesting and provocative question Doug; they can't all be rotten can they?

Many years ago I worked for a titled person, and although they seemed to have all the trump cards, in many ways they were far more restricted than us, relying 100% on staff to carry out the simplest of tasks. They may have loads of money, but it's all tied up in property investment and trusts, being caretakers for the next generation, and they rarely carry any cash. Their circle of friends is small as newcomers always pump them for money. As a group I found them to be petulant, spoilt, easily bored and a bit pathetic, and certainly unaware of the Bigger Picture, although their manners were impeccable.

However, the people advising them, investing their funds and taking hundreds of thousands in commission - the faceless, influential "middle men" wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, wielding enormous power and bestowing favours for favours, like an upper crust mafia - they represent the real power imo - But who THEY are individually is anybody's guess and perhaps it's better not to name them anyway.

It's also unclear how many people across all classes are aware of what's really going on. I don't think we know the half of it either, just that nothing is quite what it seems. A large number of British people woke up during the Brexit debacle, although not nearly enough, and there are many worldwide who now regret taking the Covid vaccine, What will happen when the ptb try and lock us down again over Monkeypox will be an interesting exercise and no doubt an experiment for the controllers who were behind the last fiasco, who'll be waiting to see whether we'll fall for it again so they can take us to the next stage of mental, physical and spiritual Armageddon . . .

I have a mental list of would-be heroes, who (superstitiously, like naming the bad guys) I don't want to name in case something negative happens to them, but I'm confident that when the time comes, that shtf tipping point, we'll all be there, ready to stand behind them.

[thepainterdoug]

thank you satori and Miller

Satori, the powerful good people I referred to I dont know that the benefit from it . Perhaps they are still unaware?

what kicked this topic off for me was a conversation with my son. He is up on all the players and knows my world pretty well, but also very rooted in his business, working hard and in the business world every day.
We had this discussion and he think it is impossible, that the WEF is going to make any headway.
His comment, how would all these very successful people be willing to give it all up for this small unelected group.
And he raises a very good point.

Is it true, many dont know who they are? Even very successful people can be blind to out of the box non mainstream realities.
But I find it hard to believe they are ignorant to the powerful forces dictating things.

Maybe its too early in the game as you Miller infered. And when the time is truly upon us, all will take a strong stand against them
I dont know? Maybe we collectively really need to be pushed.
Im truly amazed with the one that I have in mind , has only received a pie in his face so far. I cannot imagine how he is still operating his agenda unhampered if people really understood what his mission is

[T Smith]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)

My question is;  What are the many other good, well-intentioned, rich and powerful people of caring positions doing about them? Why don't they step in and end it?

It's a complicated question... but I do see some of power and influence taking a stand. Elon Musk comes to mind. I don't think buying Twitter was probably the best investment or the best use of his capital. But that alone serves as a huge victory for free speech, and a shot in the arm for We the People to fight off this thing.

One could argue Donald Trump is also such a person trying to do something about it.

In my view, Musk's contribution to the question you raise is huge. The optimist in me thinks others like him will follow and throw their power and influence in the ring, and the more who do will then create a domino effect. Mark Twain's quote comes to mind:

..In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot...”

You also may be giving too much credit to the degree of awareness of the sport's team owner, the corporate CEO, the hedge fund proprietor, etc. I know some types like this personally. Yes, they are extremely wealthy and uber-smart and intelligent, but they tend to be hyper-focused, super driven and successful people, and, to a large degree, narrowly focused in their own bubble of power and wealth. I think it's a mistake to conflate wealth with the kind of awareness you're talking about. You may be surprised to learn you are likely more aware of the machinations of the plans for world government, the slippery slope to Marxism and totalitarianism, and what the controllers above their pay grades ultimately have in mind for humanity.

Right now the problems humanity faces mostly affect us commoners... we are the ones who can see the storm on the horizon because the winds always hit the plains first where we commoners reside. When such time comes when those winds begin reaching the riches and fortunes of the demographic you describe, we may see more of the kind of action you're puzzling about.

[Agape]

Dough, with respect, I asked some of the same question when I was about 5 and never got a good answer.
It just seemed to me back then that we all started from being well meant, best intentioned, humanity loving, idealists with lots of promissing education path and could make the world better place if "they" stopped fighting.

I kind of thought back then they're all also "normal people" within their souls who want to be happy.

45 years on .. through many lessons that only-only hurt,
I know now that those people aren't "normal people" as we like to imagine.
Even while they have to maintain some sort of civil public image and wear the T shirt that appeals to the masses the best, they've been irreversibly challenged from being and feeling like "ordinary humans" save for the "I want the feel like I were" .

The hierarchy of the "business club" is probably the most respected existing hierarchy on Earth , with rules and inner laws that surpass most existing religious hierarchies.

Those on "the top" are not reachable, approachable or anything similar that would allow confrontation.

The "club" works like planetary "masonic lodge" with security , private amenities and technological support most of us never heard about or seen in the market chain.

In the business world they're "gods" the lesser gods can not talk to unless they're willing to submit at the gate.

The difference between millionaires, billionaires and multi-billionaires is not negotiable. Hierarchy laws and "who can approach whom", how many minutes can they talk ,
and number of topics discussed are stringent ,
strictly controlled and chosen by the "controller" that is the one on the top of the "food chain".

Suppose "Mr/Mrs X" grant you the privilege of talking to them in some manner, as a "civil person" you don't have an idea what are you going for. Worse, the whole encounter won't usually make sense till much later in life and after you've busted most of your options ( not out of faith , no )
as a punishment for ever being in their company and taking their precious 5 minutes away.

For sure you will be always treated well and made to feel the most "normal", jovial, relaxed and friendly, encouraged to speak freely ( as long as it fits into the time limit).

No matter how intelligent, wise or entertaining you try to be ( as thinker, entrepreneur, scientist and so forth) , no matter what you have to say,
you will notice the stress before the watch hits the nerve ,
turning precious minutes to seconds of time,
perhaps last effort to fit a thought or two in before the final handshake.

In most case, they would not want to see you ( and your ideas) before another few years have passed.

Dare your ideas prove somewhat meaningful you may find that your best friends stopped believing in you ,
casually, one by one and that the best life option is somewhere far away,
somewhere low enough they find it "out of sight".

It was naive to believe that "those people" wanted to help anyone in the first place.

Their notorious stand about "helping people to help themselves" brews them prospective new generations of aggressive businessmen and women who will be tolerably trapped in the chain ( of loans, stocks and concurrence ) not to cause them "big trouble", willing to abide by the hierarchy rules


Unless you cope - talking from private experience - with strong motives ( you know of my research work from this very forum), you will be "destroyed" by them no matter how good they look or what kind of "humanitarian message" they are posing for.


All we have seen through past decades, centuries, millennia

is that they use dirty means to destroy each other because then and their ideologies can not be challenged beyond certain time , point in their "personal ascension",
in short, every "intelligence development" has a limit after which "steady state" , that means also health , perhaps personal peace are required to maintain "balance dynamics" of their enterprises.

They use sextortions, life threats, infiltrate state apparatus, defence and intel agencies , basically any social structure "of interest" to exert their influence on others

Suppose you have done nearly "nothing wrong" and don't have "affairs" , some simple dirty gossip can still be used to turn all your friends away and drive you to uneven avenues .

You-like-me, may be "disappeared" at the end of the day by "some simple cause", most usually, by one's own mistake.


They're real, the situation is real and it is how the world operates so hope it helps to explain why no one wants to speak to "those people" even while the public image suggests straight opposite.

I have lost most of my "normal life" in matter of few years- faster than I'd ever imagine- thanks to those people.
No they can't be talked to. No they refuse "to learn".

🐘

[Agape]

What's "power" in their respect , anyway.

To be most succinct, perhaps , is it the number of decisions and acts of global , national and local importance plus number of people you have loved or benefited minus the number of people who have suffered for you minus plus/minus One, whichever number turns positive
against the power of multitudes , the power of winds and tornadoes undoing the power of your windmills .

See how small I'm but the Power is on my side 🪷

[Bruce G Charlton]

My understanding is that nowadays in The West, and for several decades, nobody gets into a senior leadership position without being on the side of evil - either overall evil, or else in most significant respects of the core totalitarian agenda.

Nobody gets power without being "controlled". There are (IMO) nowadays no exceptions in The West: all who currently hold high leadership positions are controlled - whether it be politics, business, science, medicine, law, the mass media, the arts, literature, police and military - or whatever.

Dissent from the current "party line" (which often changes, and differs according to situation) on one (or a very few) agenda items is permissible - and indeed often publicized and pseudo-attacked; since dissent encapsulated by The System serves to channel and control mass dissent, by keeping it within the group of controlled persons.

I have never met any of those who got near the top leadership (except for Boris Johnson); but I have known many people who were rising to national leadership positions in the UK (the kind of people who get knighthoods and peerages) - mainly in academia, science and medicine.

It was very clear indeed that (at some particular point on the ladder) these people absolutely had to "sell out" and accept control (where and when those nearer the top considered it necessary) in order to get any chance at high positions. One could observe this "taking the ticket" happening - except in those who had already sold-out and never needed to!

I also noticed that the more "cynical" and would-be-radical and leftist/ anti-establishment someone was when they were young, the more likely they were to sell-out and become senior bureaucrats or administrators.

(Note: This does Not apply to Bill Ryan, who I knew in his early 20s! He is the exception among young radicals who proves the rule by Not selling-out!)

[thepainterdoug]

Wow Gents. Thanks for the responses. So I guess its sell yourself to the devil or your not in the club. This reminds me of The Banker Ronald Bernard ( below), who I painted a portrait of for my Whistleblower series. He tells of his rise in success and power into a club of people that would have compromised his very being and soul should he go any further.
I just dont get how they always seem to go Hand in Hand

Matthew 19:24
New International Version
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
AND CORRECT ABOUT BILL RYAN

Ronald Bernard. 9x12 oil

[Merlinus]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
There is no reason for me to name names here, you all know who they are , or at least you can fill in the blanks yourself. You will know some that others will not. 

They are the many really powerful people such as world figures, politicians, people of ungodly money, some with fame ,while others remain in the shadows that are charting the course for the rest of us.

They share the desire to control others, the masses, without our best interest, and can dictate actions and policy, legal or not, onto everyone else. 

These controller people are insulated from reality and so not at risk of harm of their decisions to themselves or their families .
No risk of involvement of war or any fallout of what they themselves put into action.
Yet they are happy to risk all others.


My question is;  What are the many other good, well-intentioned, rich and powerful people of caring positions doing about them? Why don't they step in and end it?

I think we can all understand that we the common people, have little to no actionability regarding these controllers.
But where is the dividing line? 
How could the golf course owner, the sports team owner, the many corporation CEO,s and so on who have families, sons, daughters, allow everything they built to be destroyed ?
Where is the dividing line between people of high stature, prominence and influence, from these power monger controllers?

I dont see a dividing line?  I don't understand who has to accept all this and fall in line behind these drastic measures and allow all this?  A one world Government, a Marxist system, no meat, no gas cars, cash money 15 minute cities , surveillance, and censorship

Who is spared and by what mechanism? Who gets a pass, and who decides?
pd

The gods control this realm, via their offspring, they have their own rules/methodology, ie order/chaos. They have a huge network of slaves, everyone you see, all the public figures, are part of this network . They control both sides so to speak, the light, and the dark, the heroes, and villains, left/right etc, it's all a game, a chessboard.
All roads lead to Rome.

Roughly speaking .

[Merlinus]

Do not trust anyone you see on TV, and I mean anyone. People do not naturally appear on TV, in the public eye, it is
is all artificial, planned, and controlled, sadly.

The world's a stage

[ExomatrixTV]

If I am correct, one of the Marxist Revolutionary Tactics (long time ago) during the rise of full-blown communism in Russia/Soviet Union was that they spread rumors that the resistance has to "trust the plan" falsely assuming many Generals will "fix" things soon ... this belief in good powerful men will "fix things" ... is exactly why millions stayed passive. Pacified resistance is a typical mass psychology warfare tactic.

• As long as the masses thinks we need to wait for other powerful people who are on the "good side" will solve all (or most) of our problems is EXACTLY why things went wrong!

That does not mean everything is doomed ... all depends on how "neutral" people react to fast changing circumstances. Some of them may wise up, wake up & become involved to make a real difference.

So many good people believe the lies, aka "whitewashed lies"! ... If they knew HOW they are lied too and why it works, it may wake them up to expose insane rampant corruption from within.

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

related issues/topics:

• Why So Many Good People Comply With Evil And Become Complicit
• American Marxism

Posted by Mike (here)
Folks this is a 30 minute video, explaining why woke is Marxism, by James Lindsay...who far as I'm concerned is the anti-woke Neo. It may be helpful.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=y6rk1mYiOAw

• Dr. James Lindsay on (Neo)Marxism

"Woke, a Culture War Against Europe"
this conference was organized by the "Identity and Democracy Foundation"
id-foundation.eu and MEP Tom Vandendriessche
at the European Parliament on the 30th of March 2023

00:00 The definition of Equity - "Woke is Maoism with western characteristics".
02:10 Marxism is a genus of ideological thought, with many different species in this genus
bound together by intersectionality, but the logic is Marxist
04:35 Society produces man = inversion of praxis
08:00 Take out class, put in race: CRT falls out of the hat
11:00 How's Queer Theory Marxist ?
14:03 Cultural Marxism appears (or Western Marxism)
16:25 Herbert Marcuse said the working class is no longer base of the revolution, abandons tje working class and focuses on race, sexuality and culture
19:00 They see themselves as nations, evolved to attack the west
21:03 'Being white is bad, being white is oppressive'
22:02 The European Cultural Revolution to destroy western civilization from within
24:00 Woke is Marxism evolved to attack the West, Europe is at great risk
26:20 The Goal is to make us global citizens: 17 sustainable goals (SDG) of UN = slavery
28:00 I have come to name the enemy!

TRANSCRIPT:

Woke is supposed to advance equity in Europe. So here's the definition of equity and see if it sounds like a definition of anything else you've ever heard of. The definition of equity comes from the public administration literature. It was written by a man named George Frederickson and the definition is an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal.
​
Does that sound like anything you've heard of before? Like socialism? They're going to administer an economy to make shares equal. The only difference between equity and socialism is the type of property that they redistribute, the type of shares.
​
They're going to redistribute social and cultural capital in addition to economic and material capital. And so this is my thesis when we say what is Woke?
​
Woke is Maoism with American characteristics if I might borrow from Mao himself who said that his philosophy was Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics.
​
Which means Woke is Marxism and it's a very provocative statement. It's something you will certainly hear it is not that it is different and the professors and the philosophers will spend a large amount of time explaining to you why no no. It's about economics when it's Marxism. This is social. This is cultural. This is different.
​
It's not different. I need you to think biologically for one moment and I don't mean about your bodies. We could do that. That's a different topic. I want you to think how we organize plants and animals when we study them. They're species but above species there are the genus of the animals.
​
So you think like the cats, all the cats, what you have tigers, you have lions, you have house cats, you have whatever leopards, many different kinds of cats. If we think of Marxism as a genus of ideological thought, then classical economic Marxism is a species, radical feminism is a species in the same genus.
​
Critical race theory is a genus, sorry, a species in this genus. The genus, queer theory is a species in this genus, post-colonial theory that's plaguing Europe is a species in this genus.
​
And they have something that binds them together called intersectionality that makes them treated as if they are all one thing. But the logic is Marxist. And I want to convince you of that because Marx had a very simple proposition but we get lost.
​
We think that Marx was talking about economics because he often talked about economics. He wrote a book called Capital. It's a very famous book. And we think, well, this is about economic theory, but this isn't true. It's only true on the surface. If we go below the surface, what Marx was talking about was something different.
​
We know what Marx's hypothesis was was that we must seize the means of production if we're going to bring socialism to the nations, to the world. We have to seize the means of production. So we have to ask what does he mean. And if we think that it's about capital, then we miss what he means. If you think it's about the means of production in the factory with a hammer, and it means of production in the field with a sickle, then you miss what it means.
​
Because Marx explained what makes human beings special in his earlier writings. What makes human beings special is that man is a being that is incomplete and knows that he is incomplete.
​
He is a man whose true nature has been forgotten to him, which is social being. He is a socialist at heart who doesn't realize it. And the reason he doesn't realize it is because of the economic conditions operating as the means of construction or production, not just of the economy, but of him, but of man of society.
​
Of society, and particularly of history, Marx said that he had the first scientific study of history. How is history produced by man doing man's activity and man's key activity was economic activity as he saw it.
​
And so economic production doesn't just produce the goods and services of the economy, it produces society itself and society in terms produces man. He called this the inversion of praxis.
​
And so when he says we must seize the means of production and he's talking about factories and fields, he's actually talking about how we construct who we are as human beings so that we might complete ourselves so that we might complete history.
​
And at the end of history, mankind will remember that he is a social being and we will have a socialist society. A perfect communism that transcends private property is how we put it.
​
He said in fact that communism is the transcendence of private property as human self-extraintment. That's a quote from the economic philosophic manuscripts in 1944, 1844.
​
So Marx was interested in controlling our understanding and controlling how man produces himself. He writes about this exclusively in the 1840s.
​
Very deeply, how do we do this? And he looks at the economic conditions and he says this is where it is and that's why we get economic Marxism and that's why we think Marx was an economist.
​
But Marx was never an economist. He was at theologian. He wanted to produce a religion for mankind that would supersede all of the religions of mankind and bring him back to his true social nature.
​
And this is the true fact of Marx. And what the goal was, like I said, is to complete man. So what he said is, well, how are we building man currently? All of his economic analysis is about how are we building man at present through what he called material determinism.
​
And he said, well, what we have is a special form of private property in our society or society is organized around private property. And so all of our thoughts organize around private property.
​
In other words, there's a special kind of property that the bourgeois elite class has access to and then they organize society to exclude everybody else from access to that property through exploitation, through alienation, through a strangement, through oppression.
​
And so what Karl Marx was proposing is the economics becomes a vehicle to separate society into a bourgeois class that has access to a special form of property. The people who have access wish to retain that. So they oppress people and keep other people out of that special form of property. They erect a system of classism to do that.
​
It's enforced by an ideology called capitalism that believes that this is the right way to engage in the world. And what we have to do is awaken the under class, the proletariat to the real conditions and the fact that they are historical agents of change.
​
And bring them to do a revolution and transform society so that we would have equity or socialism, whichever word you want. They have the same definition.
​
Now let's say that we step out, we step back from this species, this economic species, homo-economicus. And we step back to the genus and we look at this idea, a special form of property that segregates society into people who have the bourgeois and the people who do not have who are in class conflict with an ideology that keeps this in place.
​
And the under class must awaken with consciousness to fight back and decise the means of production of that form of deterministic property. And now we say, change out class, put in race and watch. We get critical race theory falls out of the hat. Just like that. Very simple.
​
In 1993 Cheryl Harris wrote a long article for the Harvard Law Review called Whiteness's property. She explained that whiteness or white privilege constitutes a kind of cultural private property. She says it must be abolished in order to have racial justice. Just like Karl Marx said that in the Communist manifesto, he wrote, communism can be summarized in a single sentence, the abolition of private property.
​
Well, that's why critical race theory calls to abolish whiteness because whiteness is a form of private property. People who have access to this property are whites or white adjacent or they act white. These are words out of the American lexicon that they've used to describe how people gain access to the private property. People without that are people of color and they are oppressed by systemic racism.
​
Systemic racism is enforced by an ideology of white supremacy. Instead of capitalism, if you think of whiteness as a form of cultural capital, white supremacy as they define it as identical to capitalism. It's the belief, it's not believing that white people are superior. It's believing that white people have access to the control of society and should maintain that.
​
Even if you don't actually believe that, if you merely support that, you have adopted the ideology of white supremacy into your mind. And so you have the exact same system and the goal is to awaken a racial consciousness in people so that they will band together as a class and seize the means of cultural production so that white cultural production is no longer the dominant mode.
​
It's a big mystery in Europe. I know in the UK throughout Europe, I hear this question again and again. Why on earth is this very American phenomenon about slavery and so on that doesn't apply to our country? Why is it popular here? It's because it's not about history at all. It's not about slavery at all. Those are excuses that they use. It's about creating a class consciousness that's against this form of property called whiteness.
​
It's against the dominant culture that may just be of matter of fact, say if you're in Europe. That's why because it becomes a site by which people can come together and they can channel resentment and try to claim power. I wrote a book called Race Marxism and I defined critical race theory as it really is in that book on the first page.
​
I said that critical race theory is calling everything you want to control racist until you control it. But couldn't we say the same about Marxism? It's calling everything you want to control bourgeois until you control it. But those mean the same thing. They mean exactly the same thing.
​
But what about say queer theory? How is that Marxist? It's very strange. All this gender and sex and sexuality. Well, Tom said, what does woke attack the idea of being normal?
​
Well, the queer theory thinks that there are certain people who get to set the norms of society. They are privileged. They called themselves normal. They say this is normal. It's normal to consider yourself a man and look like a man and act like a man and dress like a man and eat meat like a man.
​
And then there are women. This should be feminine and pretty and all these things. And so they get to define what's normal. They're heterosexuals. So they get to define the heterosexuality as normal and other sexualities are abnormal.
​
And so you have a conflict across this cultural property of who gets to be considered normal and who is a pervert or a freak or some other term that gets used in their literature.
​
But technically, who is a queer, which sounds like a slur, but they adopted it and it's a technical academic term now. It means an identity without an essence, by the way, an identity that is strictly oppositional to the concept of the normal as defined by queer theorist David Halperin in his 1995 book, Saint Foucault, toward a gay hageography.
​
I didn't make that up. I'm not extrapolating. So you see queer theory is just another species of the genus of Marxism. What about postcolonial theory, which is plaguing Europe, thanks to Franz Fannen and his biggest European fan, Jean Paul Sartre.
​
What about this? What's the same? You have the West as the oppressor. They have access to the material and cultural wealth of the world because they've decided their culture is the default and have gone and colonized the world to bring culture to the world, as they say.
​
And so the oppressed, the natives around the world, the people have to band together and their activity is going to be called decolonization. They have to remove every aspect of Western culture. So when they come to Belgium or they come to France or they come to the United States and they say we're going to decolonize the curriculum, where they go to the UK and say we're going to decolonize Shakespeare.
​
This is what they mean. We're going to remove the cultural significance of your cultural artifacts because those cultural artifacts themselves are oppressive to us.
​
This is the same system. It's another species. And the exact same genus and that genus is Marxism, which is a way of thinking about the world. And the goal is always to seize the means of control of the production of man and history and society.
​
Marx merely believed it was through economic means. Now it's through socio-cultural means. The evolution into this sometimes called Western Marxism began in the 1920s.
​
We had a Russian revolution in 1917 and this did not happen in Europe and the Marxists in Europe were confused. And so Antonio Gramsci sat down and wrote out some things and George Lucache sat down and wrote history and class consciousness after the failure of the revolution in Hungary.
​
And they wrote what became cultural Marxism. The idea that we have to enter the cultural institutions in order to change them from within because Western culture has something about it that's repelling socialism.
​
So we have to go inside and change the culture to make it socialist. Now you aren't allowed to talk about cultural Marxism now. They've categorized this as a conspiracy theory. They say that it is anti-Semitic. This is not true. Antonio Gramsci wrote books. George Lucache wrote books. You can read those books. They have a philosophy. If they don't like the name cultural Marxism, we can use the name that other people at the time used Western Marxism.
​
So much like a virus adapting to the conditions, it changed to try to infect a new host. It worked in feudal societies. Marxism took over in Russia. It took over later in China. It took over in all of these kind of agriculturally driven feudal societies. But it wouldn't work in actual capitalist nations because Marx was wrong.
​
Then several Germans from the Frankfurt School started to study this phenomenon in more depth and they evolved the idea further. They evolved the idea into what's called critical Marxism. They developed what's called the critical theory.
​
And Max Horkheimer who designed the critical theory explained the critical theory and what did he say? He said, well, what we came to realize was that Marx was wrong about one thing.
​
Capitalism does not emiserate the worker. It allows him to build a better life. So I developed the critical theory because it is not possible to articulate the vision of a good society on the terms of the existing society.
​
So critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the existing society. Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to Marx's conflict analysis. But how is that to be done?
​
They sought an answer through the middle part of the 20th century and World War II breaks out. The Frankfurt School comes to America, which in this metaphor is the Wuhan Institute of Virology because gain of function began to happen on the Marxist virus very quickly.
​
In America, in American universities adopted these professors from Germany and Herbert Marcusa writing in the 1960s said extremely clearly this writing in 1969, not only did he say capitalism delivers the goods, gives people a good life, makes them wealthy and comfortable and happy.
​
He also said that the working class is no longer going to be the base of the revolution because of these things. In other words, we don't have to be responsible to the working class anymore, which opens up the ability for Marxists who are seeking power to make friends with the corporations.
​
The bosses are no longer the enemy, they're an opportunity because the working class is irrelevant. He said the energy is somewhere else. He said it's in the racial minorities, the sexual minorities, the feminists, the outsiders.
​
That's who he said have the energy for Marxist revolution in the West, not the working class. And so Marxism was able to evolve to abandon the working class. And so what did they do? Well, all they had studied for 30 years was what they called the culture industry. An industry that commodifies and packages culture and sells it back to people.
​
So supposedly stripped of what it actually is, empty, abstract now. And so what, of course, did they do? They seized the means of production of the culture industry because that's what they do. And so they started to transform the culture industry to sell racial, sexual, gender, sexuality based, agit prop as though that were genuine culture. And so we get concepts like cultural appropriation.
​
We get concepts like cultural relevance, cultural this, cultural that, cultural everything. And it's all provided in pastiche. It's all provided as a as a as a mockery of what's really going on.
​
And this evolved in America's highly racialized context. And we ended up with woke a form of identity based Marxism, a constellation of Marxist species that all work with the same operating premise, but locate themselves in different. And I'll use the German term here for this folk.
​
LGBTQ is a folk. They get folkish identity there and become activists. The black community is a folk. How do I know? That's what W. E. B. Du Bois said it would be when he laid down the foundations that became critical race theory later. They think of themselves as nations. Don't they all have flags. Don't they put them on your buildings like colonizers. Don't they hang them in your streets. They think of themselves as occupying nations.
​
But they see themselves as bound together just like the various colonized nations around the world and seeking liberation from Western civilization. And so we end up with Western Marxism taking many forms, but with one overarching approach.
​
And the approach that they use I started off by saying is Maoist, not merely Marxist. Now you know the theory is Marx. It's just evolved into different species to attack the West at its weakest points through our tolerance, through our acceptance, through our openness, through our generosity, through our best traits, actually, the things that we should be proud of being, the things that we are proud of being.
​
But Mao Zedong knew how to use identity politics. I don't know how you study in Europe, but in America we have very red-washed education as we might say. The Communists have stripped out all education about communism entirely.
​
You don't learn about it in America at all. So we don't learn anything about Mao. And maybe you don't know this, but I tell us to American audiences and they're shocked. Mao used identity politics. He created 10 identities in China. Five. He labeled red for communist. Five. He labeled black for fascist. And he categorized people into these identity categories. What they are doesn't really matter. Of course they were communist. They were things like landlord and rich farmer and things like this. Right-winger is a bad category in and of itself, by the way. Conservative. All of them. Bad. Bad influences. That's another one. You could be a bad influence for just one.
​
You're just thinking the wrong thing or saying the wrong thing at any time or because the government decides it doesn't like you. These are the bad categories. And if you have a bad category, very importantly your children have a bad category by default.
​
So they create a social pressure for your children to identify as revolutionaries. At which point they get a red identity, a communist identity, a good identity. And they get rewarded for it. And the youth read the revolution in China because Mao did this identity politics through the children in the schools that should feel very uncomfortable to you.
​
Because here we have at least in the United States, we tell our children being white is bad. Being white is oppressive. You automatically hurt people of other races by your very existence. But by the way, if you become queer, we'll celebrate you.
​
And you can create a radical army of people who identify as gender minorities and sexual minorities at seven years old. You can lead them into paths of puberty blockers and transition medical transition, which of course, big pharma profits off of. At seven years old behind their parents back. There's a reason for this. It's the same program that Mao Zedong used to radicalize the youth in China. The only thing different is the identity categories have shifted.
​
It's Maoist cultural revolution with American characteristics and it's being exported to Europe. And just like how critical race theory has come to Europe, even though it doesn't make sense, it will come to Europe whether it makes sense or not. And you will have a cultural revolution here too.
​
You guys even had a kind of offshoot one in 2020. George Floyd dies in Minnesota, which has nothing to do with you. And you guys have statues coming down in Europe. Total nonsense. It doesn't matter though. The point is to destroy Western civilization from within using Maoist techniques. One last point about Mao to kind of drive that point home Mao said in 1942 that his formula to transform China was called unity criticism unity.
​
First you try to create the desire for unity. Then you criticize people for not living up to that. Then you bring them into unity under a new standard. Does that feel like what you're being put through? But the words are different.
​
We use words like inclusion and belonging. We'll have a place where everybody feels like they belong. We just want to have an inclusive space. But unfortunately you have racist ideas and you have to criticize for you. We have to criticize you for those.
​
You need to criticize yourself for those. You need to go study, Shui Shi and Mandarin. Exactly like Mao said. And then we can bring you into unity under a new standard, which Mao called socialist discipline, which we in the West would not buy. We call it in the West inclusion.
​
And so we have this new program and within inclusion we have or above inclusion actually we have sustainability. We have a sustainable and inclusive future. I see the agenda 2030 here with an ex over it. The sustainable and inclusive future is the new socialist standard that we will have freedom under socialist discipline.
​
And Mao said the way that that will work is through what he called democratic centralism. We call that stakeholder capitalism. And my shot at the World Economic Forum is taken because it's one of the things coordinating this.
​
So woke is Marxism. It's advancing through Maoist cultural revolution. It's using Americanized identity categories. And while some of those will not work in Europe. I guarantee you the colonial aspect will they will find your weakness. They will adapt the theory to fit because it's like a virus that will evolve to its host. And Europe is at great risk.
​
Now the last thing I'll mention is this risk is twofold. When you endure Marxist provocation, Marxist strategy is always of the same type. It's called middle level violence. They don't come at you with full blown bolster of assault very often.
​
It's middle level violence. They provoke, which means if you give in and you do like John Paul Sartre said in his forward to the wretched of the earth by Franz Fountain, the D post colonial book, he said, the violence is coming. So Europe's best bet is to give it away so that they don't kill you. They'll murder you and take it. Or maybe you can give it away.
​
Give your culture away. Give your countries away. And they'll let you live. They're coming for you. And this is what Europe needs to learn. That's what he says in the forward of wretched of the earth. You can read it for yourself, probably in the original French that I can't read.
​
And I think that's the path Europe has followed so you can give away. That's one side because they provoke at the middle or you can react and over react, which sadly Europe has had a rough history in the last century with over reactions. And if they, if you over react, what will they do? They will weaponize your over reaction for a century forever and gain moral authority so that you end up having to give it away later anyway.
​
So you have to stand firm in your principles, but you have to do so cleverly. You have to do so understanding that you're being provoked, which means you don't react as the provokator wants you to react. You have to outsmart them, which is not possible unless you know the diagnosis of your problem.
​
It's a Polish proverb never attempt to cure what you don't understand. Woke is Marxism evolved to attack the West. If you don't understand that, you will not act correctly. You will not cure it. And it will conquer your countries. It will conquer all of Europe. And we will have a very, very long sustainable and inclusive future with absolutely no freedom. Because the goal is to make us into what they call global citizens. Have you heard this term?
​
This term is nonsense. There's no global sovereign. So there is no global citizenship. There's no relationship because there's no ruler. And we don't want a ruler of the globe. It's a nonsense term.
​
But they tell you if you actually read their literature, what is a global citizen? It's somebody I kid you not. I make no joke. They say this themselves. It's somebody who supports the 17 sustainable development goals of the United Nations agenda 2030. That's a global citizen. And they say, what are the rights of a global citizen? This is in a book about global citizenship education published two years ago.
​
What are the rights of a global citizen? And the answer one paragraph later is we're not that interested in rights with global citizenship. It's more about global responsibilities. In other words, slavery.
​
This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Western world. The model that they are pushing us toward using the means and mechanisms of that place is the model we see in China. If you want to know what your future looks like, if we don't stop the woke, look at China.
​
Look at the social credit system, look at the oppression, look at people disappearing for having the wrong opinions. One of their greatest billionaires, Jack Moss, said the wrong thing about the government and disappeared. A billionaire.
​
If you want to know what the future of Europe and America and the five eyes or whatever the countries. It's China. That's the model. So we have to fight back against woke, but to fight back against woke, we have to understand it. And I will close by restating my thesis.
​
Woke as Marxism evolved to take on the West. And it's been very successful so far because we haven't known our enemy. We cannot name our enemy. And I've come here to name our enemy. So thank you for your time and attention and letting me do that.

• source

--o-O-o--

Bill Cooper (who personally met face to face in 1993, 31 years ago) repeatedly warned everybody that: if you do not know what kind of weapons the enemy is using against you (against all of us) ... You/we have no chance of winning the battle!

• Bill Cooper knew and said too much. Which may have been why he was murdered
• The Case for Bill Cooper
• Are Sports Distracting The Masses? ... Bill Cooper Warned Us!
• A moment of appreciation for Bill Cooper

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[HopSan]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)

It was very clear indeed that (at some particular point on the ladder) these people absolutely had to "sell out" and accept control (where and when those nearer the top considered it necessary) in order to get any chance at high positions. One could observe this "taking the ticket" happening - except in those who had already sold-out and never needed to!

I think I was invited twice to the 'club' when I was about 17. Background: I was part of 'talent' to be controlled. (I'll avoid details, for privacy.)

1. In a party, where a member of of a very prominent local party was present, a young really attractive woman 'grinded' me. I could not understand what was happening, and escaped.

2. About a year later, in a party of a sports club, I was called to a table, where a local 'sports star' from my school, very friendly but straightly invited me in. I did not understand what he talked about, and the offer was not repeated.

Edit: These are things that happened but what we completely forgot.

[AutumnW]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
My question is;  What are the many other good, well-intentioned, rich and powerful people of caring positions doing about them? Why don't they step in and end it?

pd

They can't step in and end it without the go ahead from the power elite. That will never happen, because those people are dead selfish. 'Marxism', by the way is what the power elite call flowing money back in services and social programs to people who pay taxes. And that's not them.

[shaberon]

When I look at this, it occurs to me that no Revolution in history has been accomplished without participation of the petits-bourgeoisie.

What that means is, on the one hand, no mass of us rabble does anything that begets a new era.

It *does* mean that the top of the "food chain" is suddenly decapitated.

The non-conversation that can't happen never takes place. The minority of sensible wealthy does not start to persuade the Big Fish to employ different policies. They align to the poor, in order to perform surgery.

Without such an alignment being made, then, no, there would be no expectation of "persons of conscience" having any effect on "the system". Rather, it plays to its benefit to let you think about it and talk about it. Energy is vented, nothing happens.

[Abondance]

A good read for people interested in the nature of evil in society : Political ponerology (by psychiatrist Dr. Andrew M. Lobaczewski).

Political Ponerology is a study of the founders and supporters of oppressive political regimes.

The author have written this study under stalinism (he was polish) but that is very topical. How societies plunge in what he describes as hysterical cycle under psychopath &co's domination (at every level of power).

It helps me a lot to understand the current madness of mass...
I don't tell that this book have all datas but it gives a lot of clues !

The good new is that this cycle (as all cycles) come to an end, because this kind of society can't survive, or it will collapse, a day or another. But yes, it can take some times, decades perhaps... maybe should we consider also that we are in a never-seen situation with a lot of unknown factors (IA etc) that could bring a lot of change for every part of the game.

But the real great predators of predators are their own race (or their Praetorian guards )...




Here a pdf link :



https://www.survivorshandbook.com/wp...ponerology.pdf