The mistakes technocrats make – that will be their downfall.

[Note: this essay includes shameless generalisations and the tarring of several groups with the same brush. The reason is I believe that these groups a) are like peas in the same pod and b) are, wittingly or not, interwoven threads of a tapestry of control and disinformation. Can I prove this? I am not trying to: I am merely painting a picture that relates to a circumstantial case. I seek to open discussion].

Technocrats, globalists, aetheists and eugenicists make some fairly fundamental mistakes. In fact their varying associated philosophies are confused and fatally self-contradictory. Perhaps that is why plans for world domination have taken so long to unfold: at some level they can’t actually work, since they are formed in a fantasy world of controlling all that cannot be controlled. The problem for us ordinary mortals is that the self-chosen few are resourceful enough to do an awful lot of damage playing with their dangerous toys.

1) They think that nature has failed, that it is imperfect, and that it can be replaced by something better, created by themselves.

This delusion has yet to be borne out in practice, which rather suggests that the reverse is true. What has been shown time and again in practice is that one should not underestimate the potential of a handful of wealthy and well-connected megalomaniacs to do a great deal of harm trying out their crackpot ideas.

2) They believe that with enough data points and enough control inputs they can create perfection in all systems big and small.

But the universe has infinite detail and there are no limitations to the interactions between its elements. However many data points and control points they have, there are an infinite number of points in between, to which they have no access. Chaos Theory tells us that they can all matter. Even the highest resolution of data collection and processing cannot ever compete with a true analog universe. And once one gets to a very small scale, the attempt to represent analog reality with a digital or integer-based quantum physics leads to a very strange unreality, that may bear very little resemblance to the way the universe really functions.

3) They hate nature.

And they lack due respect for humanity and nature as the real driving forces for progress. All that is best in their world, are the things they can design and control. They claim that science leads the way and utility follows. In fact it is very much the other way around. It is a mere 350 years since gravity was first formally described, and yet we have dealt with it since the beginning of time without any problem. Even now there is still no explanation for gravity that makes any sense; or that makes any practical difference whatsoever to our lives. Science hasn’t even begun to address consciousness, but we all instinctively know that it has a useful purpose. And if nothing else, we enjoy it!

4) What they say and what they do are a big mismatch.

They will claim to be driven by pure reason while acting like spoilt children who twist reason to justify their own ego-driven ambitions. When called out on the inconsistencies, they tend to ignore criticism or simply move the goalposts of any discussion. People with lots of money and power can do this, because they do not have to listen to anything they find inconvenient. If you go to them with bad news they will just ignore you and pay somebody else to give them good news. Debating with them can drive one nuts, unless one realises they are not reasonable, rational people. To them, reason is just a tool to obfuscate and dominate. Once one accepts this, the debate can move to another, much more productive, level.

5) They treat science as a matter of choosing sides.

Their opinion is science, everyone else’s is mere superstition. Why? Because them saying so avoids them having to debate their position. Hence alongside the rise of technocracy we are now living in the post-evidence-based science era. Not that there isn’t plenty of evidence for why some heavily promoted technocratic theories are very badly flawed (including some whoppers, like health through pharmacy, and man-made climate change), it’s just that the evidence doesn’t seem enough to cause them to reflect.

6) They promote the principle of collectivism, a theory full of fallacies and contradictions, where the needs of society are supposed to outweigh the needs of the individual.

The rationale is that in order for the individual to be healthy, happy and free, society must be heavily controlled (ie. not free). And that for society to be safe, ‘dangerous’ nature must be defeated. It is unclear how there can possibly be collective health and happiness without individual health and happiness. Historically, highly controlled societies have been anything but healthy and happy, and millions killed in the name of such collective happiness and health might question the cost.

Such societies tend to adopt systems that become monsters over which nobody has any control. This is extremely dangerous. In such societies anyone seeking to change the system is risking severe punishment, right up to presidents, chairmen and prime ministers. All are servants of the monster. Millions can suffer and die in the name of the system.

A healthy society without healthy individuals is not possible. Achieving individual health, freedom and happiness through collectivism is a lie, a logical fallacy, an empirical failure.

What collectivism means in fact is that the individual must put his own needs second to the needs of the group. And if the individual objects to this, then there is always the reasoning that some other person un-named has needs that are being affected otherwise.

But, if your rights are more important than mine, and my rights are more important than yours, then neither of us in fact has any rights and neither of us has our needs met.

The good news is that I am not asking you to sacrifice your rights to protect mine, and I am willing to fight for your rights because they are the same as my rights. The current oppressive, unlawful, pandemic response has seen everybody’s rights removed and nobody’s rights protected. All those ‘other people’ are suffering as well. So, collectivism does not work. If it did, nature would not have provided us with individual consciousness, and self-awareness would have already wiped us out. Individual free will would not have survived the evolutionary process.

7) They believe that science and technology can solve all problems.

It is more accurate to say that science and technology have created most of our common problems, and solved a few. Any time you think you need technology to solve a problem, reflect on why you have that problem, and you will probably see that technology has had a role in creating it. It might not even be a problem. For instance, anybody who thinks mobile phone bandwidth is a problem is an idiot (or an investor in telecoms). Almost all common human problems have arisen out of failure to work within the limits of the natural world.

We must never forget that technology is the tool not the purpose, and is there to make life better, and it can only do that up to a certain point. Importantly, there is always a price to pay for the benefits of technology, and it is perfectly reasonable for an individual to say of any new technology “no thanks, that isn’t for me”, without being accused of hurting anybody. It is also a good strategy when faced with complex problems to consider ones own expectations, and whether they were problems one needed to have in the first place.

8) They don’t believe in intelligent design of the universe (creation by a superior being), and yet intelligent design is exactly what they want to achieve, in their god-like role as (self) chosen ones superior to all other life, all other humans, and all nature.

They can’t have it both ways. If they didn’t think nature could be improved upon they would whenever possible leave it alone to take its course, and invoke natural solutions as the first choice always. Seeking to do better than nature is chasing the holy grail of intelligent design. Nature does not offer everything we desire, but it does offer everything we need, and it is up to us to interact with nature wisely.

Logically, since the universe is effectively infinite, if intelligent design were possible it would already have happened. The obvious paradox is that if they truly believe nature can be improved upon intentionally, then they must logically support the idea of intelligent design in principle, and of it having already taken place in the creation of the infinite universe in which we live. Since it appears the universe we occupy is natural, it therefore follows that nature’s creations are better than any intelligent design of mortal beings. And if it is the work of supreme beings, then mortals should consider whether it is wise to try and do a better job than the gods. [If this argument isn’t clear at first, I suggest don’t struggle too hard with it, just let it sink in.]

I don’t have a major position on divinity, except to say that as a scientist I have no rational reason to exclude deities, and I also must respect those who find practical value in religion, being something that has arisen out of our evolved nature. Don’t expect everything of value to have a logical explanation, otherwise you will come unstuck as soon as you acknowledge your own consciousness.

You can’t have it both ways, Richard Dawkins – promote the theory of evolution then poo-poo the fruits of natural selection (eg the spiritual life of humans).

9) When things go wrong they blame nature, and when things go right they take the credit.

In fact nothing can work outside of nature’s laws, and when things go wrong it is nearly always from a failure to respect the laws of nature, or from trying to improve upon them.

10) They believe in a single best solution to every problem, and yet Charles Darwin is their hero. Have you spotted the paradox yet? If not, then read on…

In fact Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was a founder of the eugenics movement. And eugenics proposes to subvert natural selection for the strength of the species.

But if Darwinism has anything to teach us it is about the importance of the individual, and the collective strength that comes from variation and free competition. This is a great example of the technocratic paradox; and of the wrong-headedness of thinking nature can be improved upon when it can’t.

The theory of evolution points absolutely to the importance of chance, competition, variation and redundancy in producing the most robust and enduring species possible. And yet, technocrats believe in control, uniformity, and reduction in numbers. The believe nature has somehow weakened the human race. Look around: it is man’s efforts to subvert nature that have weakened us: we don’t need more of the same.

By extraordinary coincidence, those who actively promote eugenics are also those who stand to gain from it. What technocrats are really doing is pretending that what is in their own interests is good for us. Eugenics is but their own competitive strategy.

Natural selection says; you do your thing and I’ll do mine, and only the test of survival will decide which way is best. The snake will not be offended if the mouse pulls away from its hypnotic stare. It will simply strive to become a better hypnotist. The mouse has no duty to the snake, and every right to use any means necessary to avoid becoming a meal.

Mother Nature does not hear appeals to reason. Survival is a clear cut matter: it is the only test that counts. In the event of some global disaster, there is more chance of the species persisting afterwards if we are not all exactly the same. If we are all the same and all make the same choices about how we live our lives, then we will all be vulnerable to the same threats.

Think about the context of so-called pandemics. Suppose there is a deadly virus that simply attacks, kills, and spreads unchecked. Our strength as a species depends on us not all having exactly the same physiology, on not all living in exactly the same environment, and not all responding in exactly the same way. It depends on there being huge numbers of us occupying many different niches.

To be sure the human race survives any unforeseen future challenges, it is essential that among us we have a huge variety of strategies for survival. As well as being different in our genetic make-up, we should have different habitats, different agricultures, different political systems, different laws, different medical systems, different traits and personalities – and different values and beliefs.

And in terms of our numbers, seven billion humans is really not that much biomass. The earth can support much much more than that. In fact, the more biomass, the better. Compared to the biomass the earth has lost in recent times, seven billion humans is nothing. What Earth can’t support is a huge number of large greedy corporations, which enables some individuals to have a disproportionate effect on the environment. And yet, corporations, institutions, and the visions of a handful of self-appointed ‘enlightened’ individuals changing the whole world is exactly what technocracy is all about; while at the same time it is against the individual, most of whom are totally innocent of causing any significant damage to the planet.

I will do what I can about plastic waste, but it is not me who is making billions out of designing a throw-away culture. The institutions set the flow, the individual must go with it. It is corporate greed that engineers our dependence on the waste of the modern world, and subverts our institutions to pass the pressure onto the public. When it goes wrong, the ordinary people take the blame and pick up the tab, the corporations profit from the solutions, and things keep going in the same overall direction. This is humanity’s never-ending struggle.

Most ordinary people want to live a good life, and possess a natural yearning to give as much to the world as they take from it, through their own increase. The needs of the individual and the needs of the planet are naturally in harmony: and technocracy’s promise to restore the balance, is like food manufacturers destroying thousands of nutrients through processing and replacing them with a couple of synthetic vitamins. Environmentalism is being exploited, to guilt-trip us into accepting all kinds of impositions and injustices, that ultimately serve corporate greed and power, not the planet.

So, you can stop blaming all the little people for everything that is wrong in the world, right now. It’s a mental trick; and if you believe it, then you are a victim of globalist gaslighting.

Real collective strength lies in a strong community that supports individual expression, not strangling or directing it. The aim of globalisation to homogonise everything under a single system of control governing everything, with conformity and uniformity imposed by authority and social credit scoring, is to set us up for much suffering at best, extinction at worst.

How does variation work?

Suppose you and I both get sick with a fever and a cough: and suppose you choose to go to hospital and take antivirals, and I stay home, rest, hydrate and take vitamin C. By allowing a variety of approaches, we increase the chances that one of us will survive and decrease the chances that both of us will die. Evidence Based Medicine suffers from the fallacy that what is best for the greatest number of people is best for the individual. In fact modern medicine has countless victims of collectivist thinking. If a new drug kills three people but saves four, statistically speaking, it is considered a success. And if in order to achieve that one net life saved you have to give it to hundreds of people, then that is considered worth doing, to the point that the deaths and side-effects must not be mentioned, lest uptake be affected and fewer lives saved. Worse still, however, is that the one life saved may be a mirage in the many possible biases of the science. So collectivism can talk us all into harm’s way very easily.

Extending that, vaccinating every single person against the current pandemic is the worst possible mistake that could be made.

Were there to be some fatal problem with the vaccine, that only showed up later on, then it could wipe us all out. And this is not a hypothetical problem. Batch problems and even design problems do occur in vaccines at regular intervals, and have caused a great deal of harm. The true history of vaccination is littered with disasters and mass-casualty incidents.

The way to ensure that one single mistake does not kill everybody on the planet is to ensure that we have the freedom to each make our own mistakes, and to own our successes. While that clearly accords with the scientific underpinnings that technocrats claim to have, it flies fully in the face of their social theories.

And generally speaking, it must be assumed that people left to their own devices, and not constantly brainwashed and drugged, will make the right decisions for them personally and their own families, that will be better than decisions imposed upon them by some committee or algorithm. Instinct is one of those highly evolved natural functions that cannot be improved upon, but that can easily be undermined. But worse, if we deny all human judgment its place (good judgment and bad), then once more we are heading into huge danger for mankind.

Our instincts allow us to navigate new and challenging events in creative ways. Our mistakes are our teachers. Non-conformism can be a vital strategy for survival and creativity, and for the advance of the whole community as well as the individual. But in a technocracy instinct is very much frowned upon. Central-planning and social credit scoring are really ways to suppress competition to the status quo, and that is not good for making a stronger species.

11) Whenever technocrats, globalists and eugenicists speak, they can’t help giving themselves away.

Ultimately in order for it to be fulfilled, an idea, however appalling, must be propagated and promulgated. In order for it to happen, they have to tell us about it. And so, they will make quite startling propositions for the future of society, then dress them up by telling us all about how good it will be for us and planet earth. And always, their comments orbit around some ambition they are desperately driven to fulfill. Tyrants will often speak politely as they show their true colours.

12) They think all ordinary people are mentally retarded and inferior.

Technocracy is driven by a sense of being better even than nature! As if three billion years of evolution can’t do the business of life as well as a few privileged nerds. The arrogance of these megalomaniacs and psychopaths is astounding. Technocracy’s sibling, Eugenics, is driven by the idea that some people are innately – genetically – superior to others. And of course it is the eugenicists who are superior by that ideology. What a coincidence! In fact three billion people are above average intelligence, and many are quite smart enough to see the blatant holes and glaring inconsistencies in these dangerous pseudoscientific ideas. You are under no obligation to believe anybody else who tells you how much smarter they are than you.

13) and lastly, every time they make a move, they show more of their hand.

If any good has come from the current engineered or hyped pandemic, it is to have woken up many millions of people to the reality of globalism and globalisation, and the staggering extent of the fake reality that has been built during the last century out of the lies and trickery of sociopaths.

 

~