Neuro-Hacking the Mass Mind (II)

Conférence Neuro-Pirates, Neuro-Esclaves partie 1 : Intervention de Lucien Cerise (Neuro-Hackers Conference – Neuro-Slaves Part I: A Talk by Lucien Cerise)

---

 
By M.K. Stylinski AKA Infrakshun
Continuing our exploration ( See part 1 here ) of Lucien Cerise’s collection of essays entitled Neuro-Hackers: Reflections on Social Engineering (2016) (Neuro-Pirates Reflexions Sur L’Ingenierie Sociale) published by Kontre Kulture.
Neuro-Hackers provides an overview of a neurological “hacking” that has been taking place in the modern age and imposed upon global populations. It seeks a “maximum efficacy” in the elimination of the seeds of revolt and if such a revolutions manifest they are to be of the Establishment’s choosing – not ours. More alarmingly, since we are no more than cattle or sheep for these self-elected Masters, it is of the utmost importance to their objectives that the collective herd does not awaken to its own power. It seems at the end of every route to true freedom they have prepared for it, anticipated it and created avenues by which we will be “entertained.”
As Cerise states:

In our age of increasing labour automation the master no longer depends on his slave for production and can therefore begin to physically suppress him. But in order not to provoke a reaction, he must do so stealthily, without striking it him thus, by stages plunging him into a globally anxiogenic, pathogenic, depressing and morbid environment where everything is polluted and toxic to the body and mind, from ambient chemical molecules to the ideas and representations disseminated in public opinion. Thus it is that a whole population is murdered by a small fire without being aware of it, as in the manner of the “boiled frog.” * ^[1]

In other words, the real battle is not external but through our very minds and the plasticity of our brain and epigenetic inheritance. Hence, the Elite seek to extinguish the very spark of a mental condition that might give rise to a genuine individual and collective awakening. The author mentions the role of the neuro-hackers is to induce a collective suicide and the suppression of creativity through such mental illness so that tribalism is invoked and maintained as camouflage for globalist authorities. Further, he has reminded us of a strata of three social engineering applications currently at play in Western societies in particular, each of which emboldens the other. As an illustration to this idea, we might liken this to the stages required for the erection of a prison for the mind: the ground work or foundation is laid, the building blocks or façade erected and finally the roof under which societies are housed is fixed in place, a container for the mind to which we are all subject.


The three applications employed by the neuro-hackers are as follows:
Dissolution through consumption/consumerism and extreme materialism, where the health of the mind and body is slowly poisoned.

In the first place, one can try to prevent the birth of the feeling of revolt by means of what Zbigniew Brzezinski called tittytainment, namely, dissolution through consumption. It was the role of consumer society to produce a satisfied and uncritical type of human. Consumerism and gentrification turn Man into a domestic animal, weak, obese, docile, atrophied, degenerate. When suffering manifests itself, it is then “naturalized”: it is said to come on its own, no political decision has its origin; the only one responsible is the individual and his personal make-up (psychological and /or physical). This method has its limits because growth and consumption for all have their limitations. Now, the more or less voluntary decay and the critique of consumption engender a psychological rearrangement which represents a real danger to Power. The cattle become nervous, jittery and difficult to manage. How to keep his nascent anger on track? ^[2]

The neutralisation of anger through controlled opposition or a socio-cultural COINTELPRO (Counter-Intelligence Operation) accompanied by the subversion of the left – political correctness being the most obvious tool for control.

If despite the consumerist dissolution, germs of revolt appear, it is still possible for such Power to guide them into a stalemate. It was the role of “the society of the spectacle” – the realm of trickery – to produce a controlled opposition to contain the disappointments of consumption in a false alternative channelled by the media. Against consumption, the dramatic critique of consumption. In other words, the pseudo-subversion of the New Left, a counter pop-culture – anti-authority, feminist, lazy, formless and safe – was launched in the United States in the sixties by the COINTELPRO … in order to seduce young people and divert it away from the serious, trained and disciplined Marxist left; those possessing a good ability to work and aligned with entryism and networking.
The spontaneity myth, according to which the best criticism of the System would be to leave it on a whim, was popularized in those years. When the master is a technocrat in an office – because that is what power is today – the response must also be technocratic and bureaucratic. The structural revolt will be to infiltrate the system in the long term, to study, to invest in the great schools and to create networks of influence and internal co-optation in the major public and private bodies, ministries, NGOs, multinationals, etc; to become a paper-pusher in suit and tie and do what the communist networks did in the fifties in the United States. Certainly, when one is twenty years old and experience legitimate instincts of insurrection, one dreams of expressing such anger at the best of the barricades, at the worst of rock concerts; sometimes on a desert island or in a cabin in the depths of the woods. These are only false leads and ways of derivation, designed so that any revolutionary veil is quickly dispersed just as it is at the end of a demo. No spontaneous insurrection has ever succeeded because the barricades are always framed at the highest level. The potential for political subversion of mass artistic events is nil and has only the function of a narcotic for social control. As for the voluntary withdrawal of affairs from the world, it amounts to letting the enemy advance. Isolation, isolates – period.
When anger manages to emerge, in spite of consumerist apathy and the tight traps set by the Spectacle to reduce it to impotence, there is still a third barrier to overcome: the guilt-tripping of anger. Since the advent of behavioural sciences in the twentieth century, the master observes his slave as a laboratory rat and invents innumerable parades to divert the danger he might one day represent. As we have seen, the first two consist in putting the slave to sleep before his television and, if he wakes up, to repeat the message to him on the television, at the cinema, on the radio, in magazine editorials – that the real, one Revolt is outside the System. ^[3]

The inculcation of guilt.

Number three may be seen as the fail-safe – the bars on the windows of the collective prison; the reinforcement of guilt and acquiescence to the Master. It is both a trap for normal people to serve the dictates of State obligations as well as a call to arms for personalities who harbour authoritarian tendencies. Neuro-hacking the brain of those predisposed to be authoritarian followers – whatever political ideology the individual happens to hold dear – is the way by which the virus spreads and draws out extremism. This time, such pathology is largely expressed through the Orwellian inversion of language and what used to be known as a left-leaning, progressive outlook:

In case these two methods fail, the master still has one last trump up his sleeve: to morally delegitimise the revolt is to guilt the slaves to revolt. This stratagem consists in reversing the place of the executioner and the victim, of the dominant and the dominated, and discouraging the slave from rattling his chains by persuading him that it is he who commits an injustice against the master. In fact, when your master manages to inculcate you with tears in his voice, that he is the victim and you the perpetrator, and threatens to drag you to court if you dare to say otherwise, the mental conditions of the Revolt retract and shrink away. When the master succeeds in making you swallow the idea that it is you, the “bastard” – anti-Semite, racist, homophobe, reactionary, sexist, speciste, etc. – and if you complain of his abuses of power, a leaden silence and self-censorship falls on your mind and inhibits your capacity for action and reaction. And then you only have to turn your anger and aggressiveness upon yourself which has you self-destruct like Laborit’s mice.* Such is the function of political correctness, this tool of social engineering which appeared in the eighties on the American campuses to intimidate any criticism of active minorities who hold the power in the Occident. ^[4]

We can see this engineering of progressivism to the point that much of its activism against the Trump administration (whether you are for or against) is actually fascistic in action and mind-set. The fusion of minority rights has been inverted into a political tool of oppression of the majority – a veritable dictatorship of positive discrimination used as a powerful leverage by the Deep State. The reason why this ideological inversion appears to be mobilised so quickly is due to its incubation since the 1960’s parallel to the use of CoIntelpro alongside the invention of cultural studies, the subjective evaluations of the latter often acting as a buffer to a much needed historical evaluation rooted in epistemological objectivity – at least, the necessity to strive toward that ideal. What we have now is a “cultural war” born from a “contamination of the intellectual world” and a “new intellectual terrorism [which] allows a disqualification, prior to debate, of any speech coming from the ‘majority’ – accused of being necessarily authoritarian and dominating – and to positively discourage speech sourced from ‘minorities’ – presented as strongly dominated and now deserving to occupy everywhere as an act of forced, progressive reparation.” ^[5]

In other words, the minority activists are having their energies used against them as well as the wider population at large in a cynical exercise of political expediency. They still focus on tribal rights, often mixed in with a narcissistic or histrionic need for attention whilst wholly ignorant of the invisible hand that guides them. With a lack of knowledge and discernment such baying can only bring to the fore those for whom the action – any action – is more important than objective truth. This has implications for much bigger issues that we must tackle, notably global terrorism, a nation’s sovereignty and the right to self-determination away from the supranational entities such as the European Union and Anglo-American interference in the Middle East. When Deep State pathology begins to infect society in order that it may continue and extend its ratlines of disorder across the globe then measures need to be taken that are neither right nor left but in the national and thereby international interest:

“In an attempt to lock in their psychological and political control over the dominant majority, the dominant minorities are now playing the moral guilt card, especially what they call ‘national self-interest’. It must be said at once: National self-interest is good for health, especially for the less affluent because it makes it possible to stabilise their living environment by keeping it relatively strong and homeostatic. National self-interest and “national closure” – that is, the national firewall – are the most effective antivirus against power-diffused viruses, which constantly seek to open us up to the point where we can be dissolved more easily. Social engineering is the method by which one penetrates a system without intrusion, without violence, but through a breach of trust, to take control of it by stealth; one thus opens the system freely, lulling its mistrust – the moment of phishing – then infiltrating it without resistance and destroying it from inside by amplifying its latent internal contradictions to fragment it – the moment of triangular conflict.
Immigration is one of the main vectors of this methodology.  Immigration has always killed both in the countries of destination and in the countries of departure, by plundering each other after having opened them up under various moral pretexts, thrown like hooks. For the “French System” what was the date of this injunction to initiation, the prelude to an applied dissolution? It is possible this was made to surface precisely on May ‘68, an historical event characterised by a huge operation of collective phishing introducing individualistic fragmentation and the war of all against all that has unfolded before our eyes since the seventies. In the context of the psychological warfare that surrounds us, individualism has a motivating function that breaks the feeling of belonging to a vast and powerful organization. Deconstructing the viral heritage of May ‘68 is therefore, simply to reconstruct the security of the French System and the immune defence of the French. After the famous “Deconstruction” of the intellectuals of sixty-eight, it is up to us to deconstruct the deconstruction, that is to say, to reconstruct everything that has been destroyed for decades.” ^[6]

To be sure, it is heresy for a socialist/liberal to be against mass immigration or for there to be certain limitations to a constant inflow of groups into a nation – which we can liken to an organism – and expect an already overloaded system to cope at all societal domains. This is not racism but pragmatism. The fact that immigration has been purposely encouraged and engineered by certain nations is also important. It is a product of the very same rapacious desire for resource control and monopolisation of capital flows. Similarly, people are no more than digits on a spreadsheet to be used to re-order and/or blackmail a nation who decides not to play ball. The present immigration crisis is a direct result of regime change and the Deep State/ Overworld drivers; the catastrophic consequences of destroying towns, villages and national infrastructure at the behest of an economic system that uses people as bargaining chips and the literal demographics of capital outlay and income. So, we have genuine migrants seeking refuge in European countries, the governments of which, under the auspices of U.S.-NATO directives are responsible for the very rape and pillage from which they flee. To impose limitations and filters on such immigration flows is natural and necessary not racist or bigoted. It is only logical that Islamic extremists in the pay of Western Intel or Jihadi loose cannons will use such immigration to their advantage. to claim otherwise is simply naive. To ignore the history of false flag terrorism and social engineering is chosen ignorance. Yet, this is the “progressivism” that cherry-picks its evils and refuses to see the bigger picture once the horse has bolted. We cannot pretend that social engineering doesn’t exist nor that it has been very effective in tuning in and tuning out minds like the dial on a radio. Nonetheless, a revisioning and rebuilding of our world must take place, a new revitalising spirit which must grow organically outside our present encouraged tribalism.
This means:

“…to leave the euro, the European Union, NATO, push back NAFTA and reorder borders, boundaries and identities at all levels of existence. To do this, it is imperative to stem the influence of elitist pressure groups that are the main disseminators of contemporary viruses: left-liberalism, cosmopolitanism, Alanticism, Zionism – from which flows mass immigration,  this crime against humanity – as well as transhumanism with its LGBT component, knowing that they all finally recognize one worship, that of Mammon.
The geopolitical translation of our reconstruction will mean preventing the cost of the global government of Jacques Attali, the Warburgs and their various corollaries: the elimination of cash, electronic subcutaneous implants, the traceability of human cattle, the dictatorship of banks, etc. We must maintain at all costs an exteriority to the Western unipolar system and its Wahhbite vassals. How? By preserving, without conditions the sovereignty of the power of the Eurasian continent, Russia, China, Iran and India, guaranteeing the freedom of other peoples on the planet and then liberating the enslaved nations, beginning with ours. As long as there is an exteriority to the unipolar globalist project – multi-polarity and life continue. Globalism advances on the pretext of terrorism. Let us never cease to repeat: the only significant terrorism is that of the State, by means of psychological operations, false flag attacks or an intentional “laissez-faire” which directs things from a distance.” ^[7]

It is perhaps more apropos to reiterate an even more important psycho-immunity that is more subtle than a nation’s immune system of social health, though intimately linked. It is the awareness of a long emergence of psychopaths in positions of power who have taken over the country from within. What if in expending enormous amounts of intellectual and political energy in prevention and shoring up our national walls that the enemy was already inside? We must focus on this issue at least parallel to any considerations of organic revolutions whereby seemingly intractable problems may yet fall into place. Without such a widespread education on an age-old esoteric secret that is effectively a different, conscience-less species nested in humanity, ALL such socio-political resistance will be doomed to failure.
In this sense, the project of revision Cerise notes as “immense” may have already underestimated the challenge if factoring in the presence of pathogenic nodes of evil remains an ephemeral foot note. Nonetheless, the only way to return to any semblance of autonomy away from authoritarian control and cartel capitalism is to rebuild everything, including our conceptions that everyone is essentially the same in terms of conscience, for they are not. And it is this that must remain at the forefront of our quest to improve the world alongside our own self-improvement.

The author does underscore an important secondary element that continually keeps the lid on a future hope for socio-economic freedom for all: the State and its agencies of so-called “anti-terrorism.” As a product of a psychopathic world-view, State centralisation and power-broking is now out-of-control and wholly corrupted by Deep State pathology whose only function is to implement, maintain and extend “a prison management of society” kept in place through optimum levels of fear and ignorance.  It is a prison that will come into being by breaking the spirit of populations so that they willingly accept it. This is the objective of neural-hacking of the mass mind: to trick it into servitude, or as Cerise describes, after breaking that spirit within the prison:

… to abolish the difference between those deprived of liberty using a new hybrid status: semi-liberty for all. Since people cannot be kept inside the prison walls indefinitely, the opposite is achieved, the walls of the prison are opened indefinitely, the prisoners are released, they are monitored a little but not too much, then electronic surveillance is extended to the whole population. Both comprise the other, this gives the penal reform of Taubira * combined with the Great East’s law of intelligence. And in order to facilitate the surveillance of social groups, communitarisation is maximized, on the model of prisons all over the world – whose matrix is the American jail – where detainees are grouped together by ethnic and cultural identity, each with its own prefabricated mythology: Muslims – takfiris / salafists, blacks – gangsta rap, whites – neo-Nazis and White Power in the United States, or regionalist independentists here, etc. ^[8]

Until we see that the State and promotion of tribalism as pervasive social engineering is the problem against us ALL – not any one tribe, cultural identity or ideology – the “Project Freedom” to which Lucien Cerise alludes will remain a pipe dream subject to new twists and turns due to our refusal to see the part we play in its genesis.

***

Lucien Cerise touches on a host of subjects related to social engineering to which I have not been able to do justice since this is merely the briefest of introductions. There is great depth to his work on neuro-hacking and most importantly, compliments the ground-breaking work of Andrew M. Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology. (Cerise’s exploration of transhumanism in this context is also covered in Neuro-Hackers and something to re-visit in the future -See video below).

I highly recommend those of you who understand French as well as native French speakers to pick up a copy from the links below and visit an interesting example of political left and right finding common ground at Égalité & Réconciliation.  I hope this will encourage you to seek out more independent online bookshops such as Kontre Kulture and Pilule Rouge for example, and to also visit websites offering similar food for thought and networking opportunities to raise our collective awareness.  (The reader may also want to visit selected post series of mine as a contextual primer (see links at end of article).

Argumenter contre le transhumanisme – Conférence de Lucien Cerise en Normandie (1/2) (Arguing Against Transhumanism – a Conference with Lucien Cerise)

---

*  = The boiling frog is an anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of threats that arise gradually.  (Wikipedia)
**  = a French surgeon, writer and philosopher. In 1952, Laborit was instrumental in the development of the drug chlorpromazine, published his findings, and convinced three psychiatrists to test it on a patient, resulting in great success. Laborit was recognized for his work, but as a surgeon searching for an anesthetic, he wound up at odds with psychiatrists who made their own discoveries and competing claims. (Wikipedia)

---

Notes
1 p.8; Cerise, Lucien; Neuro-Pirates Reflexions Sur L’Ingenierie Sociale(2016) | kontrekulture.com
2 Ibid. p.9
3 Ibid. p.10
4 Ibid. p.11
5 Ibid. p.12
6 Ibid. p.13
7 Ibid. p.14
8 Ibid. p.15

Neuro-Hacking the Mass Mind (I)

By M.K. Stylinski AKA Infrakshun

“…brain-hacking through social engineering and other processes is already a reality, and hackers are our brains. This ‘neuro-hacking’ can involve acting on the hardware, that is to say on the biological and genetic substrate of the brain, but it can also involve acting on the software, that is to say, on the communication code that we learn from society.”– Lucien Cerise

---

One of the breakthroughs in understanding the level of influence of the Deep State and Overworld dynamics has been through the recent revelations from Wikileaks’ Podesta emails. A veritable Pandora’s Box of connections has led to Pizzagate – now Pedogate – blackmail, corruption, child pornography, sex trafficking, black magick rituals and a plethora of other sordid revelations fanning out from the quest for regime change and the battle for resources in the Middle East. After researchers from all political persuasions and beliefs had been highlighting these horrors for years, these leaked emails, now being sat on by the FBI, are the closest yet to offering proof of the mechanisms which are passed from one Establishment/Deep State generation to the next like a dark baton slippery with blood.

Slowly but surely the why, who and how of our Official Culture and the drivers which ensure that humanity remains under the yoke of  World State cartels is being revealed in a way that hasn’t been seen before. Oil/Gas, weapons, drugs, and sex/organ trafficking lie at the top of multi-tiered resource pyramid. The financial architecture that perpetuates these unimaginably toxic channels is achieved through a long tradition of social engineering by Elite factions, the puppets & players of which follow a revolving door of power, irrespective of a President and his administration. This is the facade, the entrenched and inevitable outgrowth of the State that permits a shadow government to remain forever at the control panel of perpetual war and social disruption. As top-level power brokers between the CIA, the NSA and FBI jostle for supremacy let’s not forget that overall, these agencies are primarily engaged in a war for our minds as their primary reason for being.

However, let’s not imagine that the Wikileaks organisation and their poster-child Edward Snowden are somehow working for the greater good, although many in their staff may think so. I suspect that this period of permitted leaks is very probably nothing more than a psychological operation, a limited hangout of the CIA and thus an attempt to acclimatize populations to the ubiquity of surveillance and intelligence that is literally inside your home, phone, T.V. and anything else connected to the internet and the emerging SMART society.  This is one facet of the same social engineering project that we’ll discuss below.
It’s a risky game managing the flow of “leaks.” Allow too much information to seep into public consciousness and a momentum begins to emerge, not enough information and they can’t pursue their time-table of phased objectives. Which is why the hacking of lap-tops, smart phones and T.V.’s merely mirrors the hacking of our minds and beliefs – a potentially far more dangerous state of affairs then data mining. For example, the core roots of progressivism and the left have now been infected by ponerological streams of political correctness and narcissism, working in concert with CoIntelpro agents in much the same way as the New Age or Human potential movement as a whole. Thus, social movements such as LGBT, Black Lives Matter and Soros-led “social justice” organisations such as Moveon.org tune into a genuine desire for social equity and “rights” but are created or hijacked early on, driven by Deep State directives that desire the chaos of tribalism as a default setting for society. The younger generation of Millennials – who should be the hope of the world – appear incapable of exploring this dichotomy because they have already been programmed to embody and act out these inverted social-cultural beliefs, ethics and activism. The rise in an epidemic of narcissism in this demographic further encourages feel-good sensation, and a technology-driven buffer to the acknowledgement of nuance, complexity and attention to objective reality. The ability to think outside the box against ingrained conditioning becomes severely limited because it is perceived as an attack against the collective ego mask of self-entitlement.
Thus, Millennials and older generations of the well-intentioned (and not so well-intentioned) are already falling into the many traps, the escape from which will be extremely difficult since the these info-tainment led emotional hooks of manipulation offer benign moral imperatives to seduce a collective projection of unresolved shadows out into the world, thus turning ideology and justice on its head. Controlled opposition has therefore been easy to manufacture, backed up as it is by fake news of the corporate media. Those that are paying attention can see this formula everywhere you look: whether it is the BBC or CNN that promote the Establishment’s agenda of anti-Russian rhetoric to University Campuses engaging in an Orwellian re-branding of vocabulary in an tragi-comic and painfully ironic stand against racsim and bigotry.  Such tactics focus away from what really matters and into the realm of skin-deep analysis of feeling and sensation. This bio-chemical template that is burned into the young brains of new generations is the neural pathway upon which social engineering functions and thrives. Indeed, it seems much of the left, new age/green and “socially aware” are now the unconscious cultural foot-soldiers of the Deep State. This is why social engineering has been adopted with such pin-pointed skill and precision over the years and why it needs to be confronted and thoroughly explored.
The awakening to the nature of the MSM as a monolithic exercise in propaganda and thought control is gaining ground, thanks largely to the internet. It is becoming less easy to monopolise information and applied knowledge in this age of independent news feeds, FOI requests, forum research, whistle-blowers and leaked documents, despite the signs of psyops constantly filtering the truth. There is a real chance for moderates from the left and right (and many shades inbetween) to turn down the volume of their beliefs and collaborate against a common foe – that of institutionalised psychopathy. Which is why the war is being fought through the inner shadows and unresolved issues that we all have. These weaknesses can be exploited and used by the Elite through suitably prolonged exposure to new forms of social engineering. It is for this reason that lines between awareness, knowledge and apathy and ignorance are being drawn.
And so to neuro-hacking…

(left) Author Lucien Cerise and Neuro-Hackers: Reflections on Social Engineering (Neuro-Pirates Reflexions Sur L’Ingenierie Sociale) published in 2016 by Kontre Kulture.

One man who has explored the many-headed hydra of mass mind control is French author Lucien Cerise his essays of which have appeared predominantly on Alan Soral’s Égalité & Réconciliation website which offers a fusion of left-right politics and activism. (Remember Dieudonne M’bala M’bala?) These essays have been collated, updated and arranged by Cerise into a book Neuro-Hackers: Reflections on Social Engineering (2016) (Neuro-Pirates Reflexions Sur L’Ingenierie Sociale) published by Kontre Kulture.  He notes that “it is not really a collection, but rather a book written over four years [between 2012 and 2015] and in successive layers”. Obviously much of the book draws from a French perspective and how social engineering operates in the French culture. The author provides rich and detailed insights, both philosophical and dialectical, into the causes and effects of our mass mind paralysis in the face of a predominantly Western-backed “soft” totalitarianism.  Thus whether you are an American or a European, the revealed dynamics apply across all cultures. In this book you will read about the widespread and systemic use of cognitive infiltration or more appropriately, “neuro-hacking” which describes the institutionalised colonisation of our minds by pathological constructs designed to engineer conformity and compliance to social, cultural and geo-political directives.
I have translated key passages from the foreword  so that readers can gain an introductory flavour of his work.  It might be as well to start with the back cover which provides a synopsis of the contents:

“The first question that runs through this collection of texts is: ‘How to hack a brain?’ The second, essential question then immediately follows: “How to protect it?” This is because brain-hacking through social engineering and other processes is already a reality, and hackers are our brains. This ‘neuro-hacking’ can involve acting on the hardware, that is to say, on the biological and genetic substrate of the brain, but it can also involve acting on the software, that is to say, on the communication code that we learn from society. This code of epigenetic origin – this language, or software – comes to us from the socio-cultural bath into which we are plunged since childhood, imprinting on the brain its neuronal architecture. The study of social groups, their mode of construction and the links which structure them has allowed those who want to control crowds to act on its members, to modify their behaviour or even destroy them as individuals and groups – the ones most dependent on others. For individuals disconnected from any group, hierarchy, representation, or stereotype can only survive by developing symptoms of psychosis. By attacking the natural links, Oedipal ties of the masculine / feminine differentiation, but also of the parent / child hierarchy, by abolishing the notion of limits, whose overcoming in psychology is called perversion, it is society as a whole that is attacked. Destructured and made malleable – one can speak of a ‘liquid society’ – it will then be the plaything of a small oligarchy which will have nothing more to fear from the people whose souls it has appropriated.”

The author takes his inspiration from Neuro-Slaves, by Palo Cioni and Marco Della Luna, a work of cognitive science and social psychology which reviews the various methods of reducing a population to slavery by targeting the brain and bypassing its defence mechanisms.  From a macro-social perspective, one of the most importance principles he believes will counter the present directives of social engineering is the maintenance of a healthy, balanced national self-interest since a national health cannot be secured if we are at the behest of globalist visions, their economic warfare and all that comes with it. In fact, any individual, business or grouping that wishes to maintain a healthy psycho immunological system and to keep alive its spiritual and cultural traditions needs to develop true autonomy, sovereignty and self-determination before it can reach out and engage in the ideal of an “international altruism,” and indeed to allow an emergence of true community at home. In effect, without this independence of mind and natural political pragmatism we are prey to a continual hacking of our neurology, a psycho-virus that seeks to subvert, disinform and hijack constructive forms of perception which would otherwise, quite naturally lead to activities that would denote a rise in public awareness and critical thinking.
As one part of an antidote to globalism and the mental conditioning of authoritarian power structures Cerise believes we must create a “firewall” of the mind to protect against the neural hacking of our brains from toxic memes and implanted beliefs.  Without this learned defence, this “consciousness-hacking” will continue to keep us slaves via the usual “back door” of “progressive” revolutions using techniques of stealth, gradualism and innumerable addictions to consumerism. Cerise reminds us that our “authoritarian masters” hope to maintain our servitude by destroying our very instinct for survival. It is in this sense, when you strip away all the propaganda and euphemistic verbiage, that Western power structures have become totalitarian and genocidal in their scope due to the core desire of the Elite mind-set “to put an end to the human species”.  We could also add to this proposition that they wish to eradicate not only those who are blissfully unaware and happy to follow state authority and its diktats  thus acting as virtual energic food for the Deep State machinery, but more importantly, those with a functioning conscience who are resistant to psycho-pathogenic forces impinging on our consciousness.
Lucien Cerise’s association with Alain Soral and his online hub Egalite & Reconciliation appears to represent a natural meeting of minds, although quite different in approach. This is not merely due to the potential to reach a wider audience in France but as a welcome addition to the continuing attempt to limit tribalism and extremism in both the left and right whilst attempting to illuminate the Elite’s role in the disruption of a natural critical thinking and exploration of political taboos. Cerise is part of a rich philosophical compliment to Soral’s mission of freedom of the mind, politics and class. Yet, (and perhaps all the more fascinating for it) the latter is a volatile example of a pendulum swing between his experiences of the extreme left (communism) and what is seen as the extreme right (National Front) thereby giving credence to the idea that his own personal dialectic on these issues has offered an integration of the best of each political movement underpinned by rigorous objective inquiry. Whether there is a more alt. right bias and tendency for infiltration from these extreme elements is always the danger in such a reactionary interplay. Soral is clearly no stranger to explosive outbursts and instability. However, although it can never be a fail-safe, a pioneering source of rich socio-cultural discourse and political philosophy is one way to mitigate further intrusions and establish a platform for something better than we have now.

For understandable reasons, given Cerise’s “Gaullo-communist” background, establishing closer intellectual and philosophical ties to Alain Soral caused some initial caution when faced with such a controversial figure, as he explains:

Why accept an association with such a sulphurous character? Because for me, Soral is part of the furniture, as they say. His work – a kind of missing link between the academic world and that of the mass media – presents an atypical and unclassifiable character that I began to follow in 1985 when, whilst rummaging in a family library, I found a pocket edition of his first book, The Movements in Fashion Explained to Parents (Les Mouvements des modes explique des parents). I was young but I was immediately fascinated by this opus which I have re-read several times from all angles and from its methodological approach which the human and social sciences call semiotics. What is it about? To summarize: when semiotics is applied to social phenomena, it is the deciphering of the profound meaning of the stories they tell and which remain mostly semi-conscious and subliminal. ^[1]

He further explains in the foreword why he chose to extend this association and the intellectual environment that inspired his imagination:

After a first purely bookish contact with Alain Soral in the mid-eighties, I crossed paths with him two or three times during the years beginning 2000, at a time when I enjoyed a worldly picnic of social evenings in Saint-Germain-Des-Pres, amongst which were Houellebecq, Beigbeder and those from the journal Bordel by Stephanie Million. During all this time I followed his various publications and interventions with a greedy and even growing pleasure as he became more and more provocative and intolerable for a media more and more politically correct and distant from real life. His criticism of communal organizations always seemed to me salutary. The “communities” form states within the state, introduce fifth foreign columns into the national body and work consciously or unconsciously to dislocate it. * The most fortunate of these communities, irritated to be highlighted, came to pronounce against Soral and his acolyte Dieudonne with a kind of Talmudic fatwa, typical of puritanical dehumanizing centres of power across all eras, whose political correctness is only an avatar, and that always seek to forbid the “propre de l’Homme”[proper to the man;  part of man – “Because to laugh is proper to the man.”] that is to say, humour. The hatred against laughter reveals the concentrational dimension of the project of a nourished society that the slaves deride a little by mocking their masters. For my part, not having a turn of mind concerning the observance of dogma, I have never succeeded in taking this verdict seriously, not that I have the taste for provocation but simply because the facts and the real, – the only authorities I respect – stand above all religious tribunals.
I admit to being unsettled by Soral and Dieudonne’s approach toward the National Front, but I have since more easily understood the reasons at the time of the 2005 referendum on the European constitution project. I was in the camp of the “nonistes” of the left under the banner of Jose Bove, Olivier Besancenot and Etienne Chourd, which did not prevent me from quickly observing that if our “No” won, it was thanks to the famous “coagulation” with the NF and the sovereignist right in general. This made me think of our commonalities, perhaps more important than those that separated us – and at least one can say that the continuation of events, not only in Greece but everywhere in Europe, gave us good reason. On this basis, it was quite natural for me to go and see what was going on at Egalite & Reconcialition.
[…]
The French right has been heavily pro-American and Atlanticist for decades, so it has its share of responsibility in the current catastrophic situation, but times have changed. Today the coalition and the mutual cross-fertilisation of the l’Action francaise (French Action party) and the Communist Party is the royal and popular way to restructure what the liberal left and the neo-liberal right have since destructured; the reason why the Power and its opponents do everything to prevent the meeting. This political synthesis possesses its founding myths, its currents and its slogans: Cercle, Proudhon, national-Bolshevism, revolutionary nationalism, CNR, Third Way, solidarism, “coagulation”, “Neither Right nor Left: French” or better still, “left of work, right of values”. ^[2]

For Cerise, in order to understand why we continually move away from a more balanced and cooperative political and social contract means that we must pose semiotic questions on the nature of the psychological, subconscious games people play when they follow a particular fashion or movement. He states: “What personal fable are they telling themselves and how do they want to be perceived? To what personal narcissistic myth are they adhering?” It is an approach that “demythologizes and demystifies social movements” and which, in his view, offers the best entry into social engineering. He believes that while sociological semiotics can be descriptive, it can also be prospective in much the same way that marketing and fashion seek to anticipate trends and seize opportunities in order to amplify and exploit, thus allowing control of their development and orientation.  The author likens this activity to the “detection of early signs” in criminology as well as the probabilities in the quantum field:

Here, the field of study is not the real, but the probability of the real in process of materialisation. Such a method could be a kind of “quantum sociology”, sociology of potential, or events which have not yet arrived in action and exist only at a more or less high probability rate. A fascinating field of research, all in chiaroscuro, that takes place at the dawn of the real, at the junction between night and day, at the boundary between what already exists and what may exist. Social engineering most often consists of identifying these emerging tendencies and shaping them, at least, to modify the course which they would have followed spontaneously, or even to create them ex nihilo by combining, according to an unedited synthesis, between them. This is a kind of cultural filling that meets the memetic on numerous points. ^[3]

Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (2007) by Andrew M. Lobaczewski and Laura Knight-Jadczyk

The only way to navigate through that “chiaroscuro” of quantum sociology is to strive for authenticity and objective reasoning while we are being assailed by waves of subjective, fake news and science.  Those familiar with Andrew Lobaczewski’s insights into macro-social psychopathy or ponerology will see that Cerise’s theories of neuro-hacking naturally aligns with the psychologist’s work. They both highlight the same methods of viral contamination that re-wires our brain circuitry into pathogenic pathways, distorting our psycho-social and ultimately spiritual destiny into a strictly pathological perception and application of reality. Whilst national self-interest with certain provisos, is essential in fostering a natural emergence of local, regional and finally international altruism, to prevent the neural-hacking of our brains and to protect our mental immune system an awareness of social engineering methods and their access points offers the necessary inoculation against such psycho-pathogenic viruses.
In these times of tribalism and Hegelian obfuscation, we would do well to ponder on these ever-present social engineers who work best when we are emotionally reactive and asleep to our unconscious desires and beliefs. The deeper our sleep, the more we open our minds to the neuro-hackers without any realisation that such a violation has incrementally taken place. Hence the importance of a individual and collective firewall of awareness:

In terms of social engineering, these elements of code constitute the antivirus, even to the point of defending our system against viruses without borders, but without excessive restriction imposed upon the network. In order not to become neuro-slaves, let us protect ourselves from neuro-hackers, but without cutting ourselves off from the global environment where we are de facto, immersed. The task is difficult and assumes the avoidance of two pitfalls. While the Power seeks to expose us to unfiltered transnational migratory flows, it is vital to reformulate our nationalist firewall but without losing sight of the horizon of international cooperation into which we are forced during this period of Globalization in action. The ancestral adage “charité bien ordonne commence par soi-même” (“Charity Begins at Home”) will serve as a guideline because it makes it possible to articulate the ego and the Other while respecting the hierarchy of priorities. Against the negative social engineering of Power and its work of systematic inversion of all values, it is therefore urgent to put things in the right place and to affirm loud and clear that … National self-interest is the condition for international altruism. ^[4]

The French are waking up. Many others within Europe, from different belief and ideologies are also beginning to see how the mass mind is being hacked and implanted with memetic viruses of belief that represent psychological time-bombs. Socially engineered extremism has always been the tactic of choice for the Establishment which is why it is crucial that we learn how to guard against such pathology on both the right and the left. The danger is that we may fall into a Huxleyian vision of the future, whilst a more overtly Orwellian effect may take hold from a reactionary fear of the other; hijacking a positive and pragmatic transformation into a cul-de-sac of true intolerance and bigotry. Obviously, both forms of totalitarianism interpenetrate and the onus is on all of us not to get caught up in any form of dogma and evangelism on either side. Most importantly, we have to cultivate a keen sense of the history of State-sponsored terrorism and its relationship to current sociopolitical dynamics; to be fully aware that WE the people are its enemy.

This is where our commonality lies: to breathe life back into the realisation that we are all in the same prison of the mind/body at various levels of awareness.  This is how we must work together against those that would divide us. The Neuro-Hackers are at work as I write, finding new ways to set the different tribes of our rich cultures against it each other.  We must become experts in erecting firewalls in our own minds, permitting entry to only authentic and constructive information streams so that we may have a healthier immunity to future “malware.” Perhaps then we can protect Truth within ourselves and the hope of expressing it with others in the outer world.


*  =  To avoid confusion, it is well to mention that “communitarianism” to which Cerise refers in the French and European context concerns the formation and extension  of tribalism e.g. the Jewish community, the black community, LGBT community, Gay community etc. and their unconscious role in their fragmentation of the social fabric under an Official Culture. In other words, any new grouping or minority can be singled out and hystericised, politicised and used as a tool to control the majority by virtue of their “rights.” A communitariansm that emerges naturally and is a decentralised economic social organisation related to ecology and sustainability obviously has quite a different focus and meaning, albeit also prone to subversion by the State and its pathologies.

---

Notes
1 p.16; Cerise, Lucien; Neuro-Pirates Reflexions Sur L’Ingenierie Sociale(2016) | kontrekulture.com
2 Ibid. pp.18-20
3 Ibid. p.17
4 Ibid. p.20

4 Former for Frihed & Statens Vold

By ChaosNavigator & Jon Doré

'Mennesker i Hunza-regionen runder meget ofte 100 år, og mænd får børn helt op i 90-års-alderen. Men det mest fantastiske ved Hunza-folket er den kendsgerning, at sygdomme stort set ikke forekommer. Kræft, hjertesygdomme, højt og lavt blodtryk samt børnesygdomme eksisterer nærmest ikke. Der er heller ingen fængsler, politi eller militær i området, for der er ikke brug for dem. Mens resten af den civiliserede verden bekymrer sig om atomtrusler og andet, lever folk i den afsidesliggende region i Pakistan i fred, harmoni og broderlig kærlighed. Som en sidste kendsgerning skal det oplyses, at der i regionen ikke er registreret en forbrydelse i 130 år.' 
- Kristeligt Dagblad 19 Juni 2005 - se også fodnote [1] allernederst

“The truth is that any form of authoritarian control—any type of "government," whether constitutional, democratic, socialist, fascist, or anything else—will result in a set of masters forcibly oppressing a group of slaves. That is what "authority" is—all it ever has been, and all it ever could be, no matter how many layers of euphemisms and pleasant rhetoric are used in an attempt to hide it.”
― Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

Intro
Når en slave i gamle dage befriede sig selv og flygtede fra slaveplantagen, var der tilbageblevne slaver, som foragtede flygtningen fordi han forbrød sig mod slaveejerens ejendom - han 'stjal' jo sig selv! Hvilket medførte de andre slavers forargelse, som ikke havde uafhængig egenfølelse af retten til at bestemme over egen krop - den tilhørte jo ejeren!.

I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves
- Harriet Tubman

Sådan kender jeg mange autoritetstro venner idag i KBH, som er slavisk autoritetstro og fårede. Fedtmulede, Fætter Guf, goofy og ukritiske, sluger de 99% af alt som medierne og staten fortæller dem, som den skinbarlige sandhed. De er medansvarlige for at internalisere fangementaliteten som 'normal', faktisk at gøre fængslingen usynlig og kalde den 'frihed', så individet ikke behøves at blive tvunget af staten, fordi de pligttro elsker deres underdanige, suicidale Stockholm-syndromistiske servilitet, endda uden at være bevidst om dette (Governmentality). Håbløst autoritetstro og slavisk kollektivistisk bliver man uafvidende livsfarlig for sig selv og andre mennesker, hvor alle individualistiske udbryderforsøg angribes af ellers godhjertede kollektivistiske mennesker i slaveplantagen, der som kyllinger holder sig selv og hinanden i skak.

                                           Ed Griffin om Kollektivisme

At bryde ud af det kollektivistiske statssanktionerede narrativ (vacciner f.eks.) medfører stigmatisering, forargelse, angreb, etc., da retten til egen krop ikke opfattes som tilhørende individet, men må ofres for det større gode, flertalsdiktatur, selvom den påståede effektivitet af vacciner i tiltagende grad viser sig at være baseret på falske og ekstremt dubiøse præmisser, hvis ikke et direkte eugenisk bedrag af historiske proportioner. Troen på Statens krigspropaganda (og generelle propaganda), dens uundgåelighed som'god', 'sand', dens 'ufejlbarlighed', og mediernes morderiske løgnagtighed, gør denne slavementalitet livsfarlig for os alle -   specielt i skrivende stund qua fabrikeret vanvid og overhængende fare for krig mod Rusland, som dæmoniseres i skamløs massiv og løgnagtig grad med den store løgn-teknik, mens globalt nuklear holocaust underspilles, mens vi rearrangerer dæk på Titanic, og danser mens skibet brænder....beyond insanity.  Se også Fodnote [1]

 
Citatrytteri som indskudt bemærkning -  en række af korte Koans, verbale udsagn som kan lede til små kognitive 'oplysningsglimt' ( i denne sammenhæng i analytisk forstand):

Hvis du giver en slave vinger, vil han feje gaden med dem
- polsk ordsprog

Fangen vender tilbage til hulen for at informere fangerne om, at de er fanger.
 De tror ikke på ham. og truer med at slå ham ihjel, hvis han forsøger at sætte dem fri
- om Platons Hule og Sokrates

 Lykkelige slaver er de bitreste modstandere af frihed
  ―Marie Freifrau von Ebner-Eschenbach

Det er svært at frigive tåber fra de lænker de ærer
  ―  Voltaire 

Frygten for frihed gør os stolte af at være slaver
 ―  Ukendt

Tilfredse slaver gør vågne mennesker ulykkelige

Hvis du ikke indser ufrihed, vil du aldrig bryde dine lænker - hvis du ikke bryder 
dine lænker, vil du ikke kunne hjælpe dig selv eller andre

Hvis du ikke lærer at tænke selv, bliver dine tanker ikke dine egne men andres

Hvis du ikke skriver dit eget script i livet, bliver du en statist i en andens
- variation af John Taylor Gatto, Krishnamurti, etc.

I middelmådighedens tidsalder premieres talentløsheden

I desensitiveringens tidsalder bliver de sensitive sygeliggjort

I en verden af universel løgn vil sandhed blive fornægtet
- variation af George Orwell citat

Folk der vågner er de sovendes mareridt

Mørket belyses men folk forsvarer lyseslukkerne, for uvidenhed er salighed

Et psykopatisk 'normaliseret' samfund ser ikke dets egen psykopati...fordi det er 'normalt'

En skændsel, en skamplet, et zombificeret kollektivt kognitivt mørke af institutionaliseret uvidenhed er ved at blive brudt af et nyt paradigmatisk lys. 

“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”
- ukendt (fejlagtigt tilskrevet George Bernard Shaw)

Ve de som forhindrer deres medmenneskers befrielse fra lænkerne, for de vil resten af deres dage blive husket som de facto morderisk medløbende...i bogstaveligste forstand. Ikke kun hjalp de ikke, nej, de bekæmpede aktivt befrielsen og plæderede for mord og fortsat fængsling af andre levende væsener...i nedrighed, ulidelighed...fra vugge til grav...og kaldte det 'frihed'


"Det moderne menneske er mere patologisk i sin normalitet end på sindssyghospitalet'
- C.G. Jung


"Sindssyge i individer er sjældent - men i grupper, partier, nationer og epoker, er det reglen"
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Vi er født i vold, lever i vold, og kan ikke se volden, den er allestedsnærværende, institutionaliseret, internaliseret i vores psyke som det gængse, det almene, det normative, etc. Lønarbejde f.eks:

“Størstedelen af undertrykkelse sker pga. dets legitimitet internaliseres. Dette er sandt for de mest ekstreme tilfælde. Menneskeslaveri var svært at gøre oprør imod...det var anset som den måde tingene nu engang er på. .....på et tidspunkt i 1800-tallet blev lønslaveri anset for at være ikke meget forskelligt fra menneskeslaveri. ...arbejdere kæmpede i borgerkrigen med banneret "Vi er imod lønslaveri og menneskeslaveri!". Frie mennesker lejer ikke sig selv ud....man bliver et frit menneske når man ikke er underlagt andres vilje.  .....man kunne endda læse overskrifter i New York Times dengang som skrev dette. Det tog lang tid at få ind folks hoveder, at ideen om at leje sig selv ud som lønslave er legitimt. Idag er det ulykkeligvis accepteret. Dette er internalisering af undertrykkelse. Enhver som tænker at det er legitimt at være lønarbejder har internaliseret en undertrykkelse på en måde som var absolut intolerable for mennesker for 150 år siden."
- Noam Chomsky

Hvorfor kan vi ikke forstå dette som slaveri idag? Af samme grund som slaverne på plantagerne ikke forstod, at de var slaver, men havde internaliseret det som 'normalt', alt imens de 'unormale' flygtede fra plantagen. Den omvendte verden - sådan er det idag også.

'Jeg befriede tusinder af slaver - jeg kunne have befriet tusinder mere, hvis blot de vidste, at de var slaver'
- Harriet Tubman

Derfor, at Noam Chomsky siger, at propaganda er for ‘demokratiet’, hvad vold er for diktaturet.  Hvis man kan kontrollere menneskers psyke, mind control, vil behovet for åbenlys vold være overflødiggjort. “The pen is mightier than the sword”  –  hvilket eliten ved, for hvis man kan kontrollere menneskers bevidsthed, og bilde dem ind, at de lever i ‘et frit samfund’ uden at de gennemskuer, at det er et maskeret slaveri, behøves man ikke et dikatur. Nogle af bedste CIA agenter har udtalt, at 'to win the hearts and minds' er prioritet nr. 1.

CIA defector Mark Phillips: “Wars are not won on the battlefield, they are won in the minds of the people.”

Vi er i en situation, hvor de uafvidende ofre (kyllinger) – for krigsherrernes og elitens perception management – har internaliseret elitens verdensbilleder, i vidt omfang – indenfor politik, medicin, økonomi, jura, psykologi, m.m. – skabt af elitære tænketanke, hvis verdensbilleder er designet til at beskytte eliterne, som ofrene/gidslerne ikke tror eksisterer – alt imens gidslerne, de morderiske og selvmorderiske fanger i 1. og 2. stadie, samtidigt angriber de vågne mennesker (der befinder sig i det 3. stadie) som forsøger at befri dem, fordi gidslerne (kyllingerne), pensum papegøjerne, ofrene, foretrækker at forblive  desensitiviserede overfor den ubehagelige virkelighed af deres
eksistens” - link

Og folk vil dø for frihed, og derfor er man bevidst om, at det åbenlyse slaveri ikke virker, hvilket er grunden til at man har skabt et Truman Show/Brave New World in the first place, så illusionen om frihed købes af masserne. Det gøres ved at mindfucke dem via pressen, institutionerne – og gennem et helt århundrede, hvis ikke mange hundrede af år i massive dannelses- og  uddannelses-skader, også kaldet 'socialisation'. Ikke engang lysets hastighed er en konstant (se Rupert Sheldrakes ‘The Science Delusion’ – blandt de bandlyste TED-talks, som TEDtalk forsøgte at censurere.

Everything you’ve been told is wrong!

....men civilisationens syge strukturer er dømt til at fejle, for de understøtter ikke det som mennesket er 'designet' til; frihed, balance, kærlighed....something's gotta give sooner or later....be on the side of freedom...



4 Former for Frihed
* Friheden fra tvang (coercion) og the arbitrary will of another. Det er denne form for frihed, jeg har tager udgangspunkt i og suppleret den, ganske klogt, viser det sig, med betoningen af the non-aggression principle, vold og trusler om vold. Dette er den første form for frihed,

* Økonomisk frihed gennem tilstrækkeligt råderum. Man kan have den første uden denne anden, og denne anden uden den første. Man kan således være en person, der betales godt af kongen, men som er fuldkommen underlagt kongens vilje det meste af tiden. Man kan også være fri og ikke have en klink. Og man kan have begge dele.

* Politisk frihed forstået som demokratiske frihedsrettigheder, så man kan vælge sit lands eller sin kommunes ledere. Igen kan man have politisk frihed uden at have de to første, eller man kan have den alle tre i varierende grad.

Pointen med denne øvelse er at påpege vigtigheden af at kunne skelne mellem disse tre former for frihed. Kollektivistisk fx socialister og kommunister, betoner ofte den anden og den tredje på bekostning af den første. Det er derfor ikke ualmindeligt at høre venstreorienterede besynge økonomisk lighed, så folk kan få økonomisk frihed, og sætte dette lig med frihed i det hele taget.

Dette retoriske kneb gør, at tvangen, volden og trusler om vold og dermed overtrædelse af ikke-voldsprincippet og dermed reduktionen af den første form for frihed - friheden fra tvang, vold og trusler om vold - bliver kraftigt reduceret. Ikke at man altid vil være ærlig med det - hurtigt skifter man retorisk over til at legitimere denne magtanvendelse ved at hævde, at det er moralsk at bruge vold, som det alt sammen ender med, hvis folk ikke makker ret, sålænge volden bruges til at gøre noget godt. Med andre ord helliger målet midlet. Vold er godt, hvis det bruges til at gøre noget godt, er tankegangen.

Tænk meget dybt over dette.

Den gamle grækere mente fx ikke, at man kunne være en fri mand, hvis man var slave af sit begær og ikke var herre i eget hus. Umiddelbart har jeg ikke noget imod at definere en fjerde form for frihed, da det vil have den fordel, at vi lettere kan finde ud af, hvad vi taler om.

Man kan således 1) være fri fra andres tvang, vold og trusler om vold, 2) være økonomisk fri, 3) politisk fri og 4) fri fra indre tvang. Eller man kan have mere eller mindre af dem alle fire.

Af disse fire er den første - friheden fra andres tvang, vold og trusler om vold samt respekten for ikke-voldsprincippet den vigtigste. Ikke dermed sagt, at de tre andre ikke er vigtige, kun at den første er den vigtigste. Det er dog vigtigt at være forsigtig med brugen af ordet tvang, da man godt kan føle sig tvunget til at gøre noget, uden at andre har brugt vold eller truet med vold.

Hvorfor er den første form den vigtigste?


Frihed fra vold VS indre frihed - et Buddhistisk eksempel
Man kan være nok så fri for andres vold og trusler om vold og samtidig være bundet af sine indre identifikationer, som buddhisterne ville mene.

Men uden den første ryger man ind i ret så alvorlige problemer.

Hvis mennesker opholder sig i et buddhistisk kloster for at opnå frihed af den fjerde type - indre frihed - og hvis buddhisterne, der kører klosteret prædiker ikke-vold, kan de ikke tilbageholde folk mod deres vilje, med vold og magt. Menneskene på klostret skal opholde sig på klosteret af egen frie vilje, og hvis de tilbageholdes mod deres vilje, med vold og magt, ville de buddhistiske klostermunke overtræde ikke-voldsprincippet. Da dette ikke er eller bør være tilfældet, går den første form for frihed forud for opnåelsen af den fjerde.

Det er sikkert korrekt, at der findes klostre, hvor der lægges endda ret så store begrænsninger på, hvad man må foretage sig med hvem, hvordan og hvornår. Men man kan godt være fri i den første betydning alligevel, hvis man frivilligt har indgået en aftale med klostrets ledelse om at ville overholde alle deres bud. Da klostret er munkenes ejendom, følger det naturligt heraf, at de, der opholder sig på deres ejendom, skal følge deres regler, hvor absurde eller strenge de end måtte forekomme at være for udenforstående. Det er ikke religionen, der giver dem denne ret men den naturlige ret til ejendom og deraf retten til at bestemme over den. Hvis munkene bestemte, at alle en dag skulle have kolde afvaskninger i tyve graders frost, så har de ret til at bestemme dette, men det giver dem ikke ret til at tilbageholde folk mod deres vilje. De, der vil lege med, leger med og får det kolde gys, mens de, der ikke lige synede at det er sagen, har ret til at tage deres gode tøj og gå, inden de bliver ramt af de blåkolde stråler.

Den eneste måde et buddhistisk kloster vil kunne køres uden moralske modsigelser ville være at respektere den første form for frihed og afstå fra at tilbageholde folk mod deres vilje og så kun føre folk gennem deres strenge procedurer over for dem, der er der af egen fri vilje. Dette kan som nævnt ovenfor godt indebære en nærmest fuldkommen indskrænkning af ydre udfoldelsesmuligheder, opgivelsen af sig selv som projekt osv. Men hvis ikke ikkevoldsprincippet respekteres, bliver klostrets moral til dobbeltmoral. Ikke-voldsprincippet ville i så fald kunne fraviges, hvis "man" vurderede, at det var til folks eget bedste...



 
Foucault & Frihed fra Tvang
Man kan forestille sig et samfund, der gør brug af tvang i udstrakt grad. Historien er rig med eksempler af samme stil, hvor undertrykkelsen af religionsfrihed har hørt til dagens orden. Det er ikke så lang tid siden, at de tilbageværende familiemedlemmer blev straffet alvorligt på en eller anden måde, hvis er af familiemedlemmerne havde nået den højeste form for spirituel udvikling ved ganske enkelt at disintegrere, så kun håret blev tilbage. Jeg ved ikke, modet er rigtigt, men det er Lama Ole Nydahl, der har talt om det til et foredrag. Dvs, at disse stakkels kinesere ikke kunne få lov til at praktisere på at opnå den fjerde form for frihed, med mindre de var villige til at løbe risikoen for at deres familie blev straffet, hvis de lykkedes. Religionsfrihed er i øvrigt ikke en femte form for frihed - den kræver blot, at man respekterer den første.

En streng disciplin på er buddhistisk kloster vil ikke virke frastødende på folk, der føler sig kaldet til at gå denne vej. Men hvad med alle os, der ikke er buddhister? Skal vi bare have den blåkolde stråle, så vi kan lære det? Eller skal vi have lov til selv at bestemme? Jeg praktiserer regelmæssigt yoga, men det er noget, jeg helt selv har valgt. Er det OK? Kun hvis man respekterer den første form for frihed, for ellers vil man kunne legitimere at spærre mig inde på et buddhistisk kloster for mit eget bedste, så jeg kunne blive fri.

Med mindre den første form for frihed respekteres hele tiden, vil der altid være en risiko for, at samfundet ender i det totale diktatur. Grunden hertil er, at når man først har accepteret at fravige ikke-voldsprincippet, fx ved at tvinge fik til at betale skat, så vi kan hjælpe de fattige, så er ballet åbnet for at udvide det mere og mere. Hvorfor?

Fordi det ikke er muligt at argumentere for, hvornår nok er nok. Man kan hjælpe de fattige, de syge, de svage, de gamle, børn, unge, arbejdsløse osv. på rigtigt mange måder, og der vil aldrig være penge nok, modsat hvad kollektivisterne hævder. Der er principielt set uendelige behov men kun begrænsede ressourcer, da vi lever i en verden, der altid vil være præget af mangler ("scarcity"). Vi kan kun være ét sted på én gang, vi kan ikke bruge bruttonationalproduktet to gange, den samme lejlighed kan ikke bebos af uendeligt mange personer, den samme liter letmælk kan kun gives til en person eller en familie, og når den først er drukket, kan den ikke drikkes igen.

Der er denne egenskab ved den fysiske verdens natur, der giver socialisterne deres kalkulationsproblem - dette og så fjernelsen af priser og markedet. Hermed ikke sagt, at folk ikke kan forstærke deres indre ufrihed ved at lade begæret og identifikationerne køre ræset, for selvfølgelig er dette en risiko, men det må være op til folk selv at ændre kurs og tage kampen op mod de indre kræfter. Hermed heller ikke sagt, at alting handler om penge - økonomi handler om penge, og penge er forudsætningen for at kunne økonomisere. Men det er en helt anden diskussion.

Der er dog også den mulighed, at man i en verden, hvor den første frihedsform er begrænset (som den er i den vestlige verden), kan øge sin frihed ved at øge den fjerde form. Øgningen af den fjerde form fritager ikke danskere for verdens højeste skattetryk, men det vil kunne oplæse begæsstrukturer og falske identifikationer, så man i det mindste forvalter den smule frihed, man har, så godt som muligt. Man kan fx opløse behovet for mange materielle ting, et stort hus, karriere, magt, indflydelse, prestige osv., hvilket alt andet lige vil kunne give mere tid tIl det, der måtte være mere væsentligt for én - fx dyb meditation, regelmæssige retreats osv. De muligheder, man her måtte få, vil afhænge af, hvordan samfundet respekterer den første frihed. Et udrejseforbud kan umuliggøre en tur til Tibet, uanset om man kan stemme på den, man vil, eller om man havde råd til at tage dertil. Det kan også være, at pengetrykkeriet har skabt økonomisk kaos, så man bliver tvunget af omstændighederne til at preppe på livet løs. Da udrejseforbud og pengetrykning af monopolpenge kun kan finde sted ved vold og trusler om vold, siger det sig selv, at man for at give folk mulighed for at gære det, de mener er rigtigst, må reducere volden og truslerne om vold så meget som muligt - give folk mulighed for at skabe et sundt pengesystem osv.

Sidst men ikke mindst vil jeg understrege, at min opfattelse af frihed som fravær af vold og trusler om vold er påvirket af internetreformationen, herunder også 9/11 og sæt hvad dertil hører, men kun fordi internetreformationen har gjort det muligt at få indblik i viden, der ligger uden for den goebbelske firewall. Definitionen af frihed ville også have været gyldig, selvom 9/11 ikke havde fundet sted.

Jeg definerer frihed som respekt for ikke-voldsprincippet og fravær af tvang, vold og trusler om vold. Det vil sige, at man er fri, når man ikke er underlagt et andet menneskes eller en gruppe af menneskers vilje. At være undertrykt er at være ufri, dvs. at man er undertrykt, når man er underlagt andres vilje og igennem dette udsat for tvang, vold eller trusler om vold.

Når min nevø har siddet i skolen og undertrykt sin trang til at bevæge sig, er det fordi, han har vidst, at han ellers ville risikere at blive medicineret mod sin vilje. Da det har været et uomgængeligt vilkår for at være i skolen, har han ikke været fri, da han til hver en tid har risikeret at blive udsat for denne yderst indgribende tvang, hvis han trådte ved siden af.

Magtanvendelsen har eksisteret som en trussel, og han har internaliseret denne trussel og styret sig selv. Vi ser her, et eksempel på, hvordan Foucaults governmentality har fungeret i praksis. Andre begreber for governmentality er styring gennem selvstyring eller styring på afstand. Da skolen anvender viden om ADHD, ser vi altså også, hvordan han har skabt sig selv som et subjekt for videnskabelig viden. For at forstå hvordan videnskabelig viden skaber subjekter, der er subjekter for denne viden, er det uden betydning, om ADHD er en fiktiv lidelse eller ej, idet subjektskabelsen ikke er afhængig af den anvendte videns videnskabelige sandhedsværdi men dens videnskabelige legitimitetsværdi. At ADHD tillige er en fiktion for andre end de relativt sjældne tilfælde gør det naturligvis ikke bedre. Det betyder nemlig, at han har følt sig tvunget til at lade sig styre af en fiktiv viden af frygt for at blive gjort til en zombie.






Eksemplet kan også illustrere en pointe, som ChaosNavigator ofte gentager - (dansk her)  at vi her ser et eksempel på internaliseret ufrihed, som skal erkendes som ufrihed og ikke fejlagtigt forstås som frihed. Nogen vil således ikke kunne se eller ikke have noget problem med, at min nevø har siddet og styret sig selv af frygt for at blive givet en diagnose. Argumenterne er sådan set ikke helt forkerte. Man kunne fx indvende, at børnene i skolen jo ikke bør forstyrre hinanden, og at det derfor er godt, at han kan sidde stille osv. Det er derfor, at det er vigtigt at definere sine begreber. For problemet er, at han har siddet derovre af frygt for at blive udsat for tvang, og at disciplineringen er sket ved at internalisere magten.

Selvom det sådan set er åbenlyst, når man får det forklaret, sker det uset og erkendt for de fleste. Børnene i skolen ved godt, hvad der foregår, og i et forsøg på at overleve etablerer mange børn ofte forskellige modmagtsstrategier, mens andre igen blot tilpasser sig let, fordi deres naturlige forudsætninger ikke er i konflikt med skolens krav til disciplin. ChaosNavigator's pointe kan på denne baggrund formuleres sådan, at ingen af børnene reelt er frie, fordi tvangen eller trusler om tvang findes som den kontekst enhver interaktion i skolen finder sted i.

Da frihed er fraværet af at være underlagt andres vilje, og da intet barn, uanset om det tilpasser sig eller ikke tilpasser sig er fri for denne arbitrære vilje, så er ingen af børnene i skolen frie. Grænserne for friheden er der uanset om de ses eller ej, for de opdages, hvis børnene bevæger sig for langt væk fra den videnskabelige normalitets smalle sti. Da grænserne for frihed ikke er defineret af respekten for andres tilsvarende ret til frihed men er bestemt af magthaverne, er der ikke tale om frihed men om et fængsel.

Skolesystemet er derfor intet andet end et fængsel, der opdrager børnene til at være børn indenfor ganske bestemt snævre rammer på baggrund af tvang, vold og trusler om vold. Da systemet indtil videre har haft brug for at legitimere sig selv over for forældrene, så de ikke i hobetal har taget børnene ud af folkeskolen, og da mekanismerne ikke tåler dagens lys, har man måttet opfinde et nyt sprog til at beskrive det, der foregår i skolen. Overordnet taler man om frihed, eller i det mindste lader man som om, at man respekterer friheden som kerneværdi. Derfor tror forældrene, at børnene i skolen bevarer deres frihed, og at de derfor ikke er ufrie. Men da de i skolen er underlagt andres vilje, og da de i skolen er ændre til at forholde sig til dette, enten ved at tilpasse sig, styre sig selv gennem internalisering af magten eller ved at udvikle modmagtsstrategier - og ingen af børnene kan gribe ændrede ind over for disse grundlæggende betingelser i folkeskolen - er de alle, uanset hvordan det går med tilpasningen, underlagt andres vilje, og derfor er alle børn i skolen ufrie.

Så derfor er det rigtigt, at ufriheden er reel, uanset om man erkender den eller ej, og uanset om man i sit eget hoved har vendt rundt på det hele, så man tror, at det at tilpasse sig disse magtmekanismer er det samme som at leve i frihed.

Der findes andre måder at gå i skole på, hvor man gradvist kan hjælpe børnene til at gå fra at være børn til at være voksne. Her er det også vigtigt at definere, hvad vi mener med at være barn og at være voksne. Her kommer et forsigtigt bud fra mig: at være barn er at leve på andres ejendom og samtidig være afhængig af, at andre skaffer alle fornødenheder til livets ophold. Da det sidste gør det umuligt for børn fx at betale husleje, må de bo hos andre, fx hos forældrene, mens voksne ikke behøver det (men kan gøre det, hvis de aftaler det med dem, de bor hos). At være voksen betyder til sammenligning, at man klarer sig selv med de aftaler med andre, som man finder nødvendigt. Både børn og voksne må "økonomisere" med deres ressourcer, og både børn og voksne kan indgå i det økonomiske kredsløb. Børn der hjælper til derhjemme, også ved at stå i deres families kiosk, er stadigvæk børn, med mindre de kan tjene nok til livets ophold eller gennem tuskhandel mv. kan skaffe sig alle fornødenheder, for i så fald vil de faktisk være voksne.

Mennesker starter som børn og ender forhåbentligt som voksne. Børn har derfor en dobbelt status ift. selvbestemmelse, for så længe de er børn kan de ikke bestemme selv og være fuldstændigt herre i eget hus, men efterhånden som de bliver større og større kan man give dem flere og flere frihedsgrader, så de i takt med deres voksende evner bliver mere og mere selvberoende indtil de bliver helt voksne og kan klare sig selv. Jeg ser formålet med børneopdragelse at hjælpe vores børn til at kunne klare sig selv og til at kunne leve med så høj grad af frihed fra at være underlagt andre menneskers vilje, herunder.

Skolen er ikke et særligt godt sted at opnå dette, da skolen anvender magt til at internalisere magten, således at skoleeleverne som voksne tror, at de er frie, selvom de gennem denne internalisering er underlagt andres vilje og derfor ikke er frie men kun tilsyneladende er det og kun i begrænset omfang. Da skolen for at nå sine mål undergraver børnenes selvstændighed, svækker den samtidig børnenes muligheder for at kunne klare sig selv. Meget kan siges om dette, så jeg vil henvise til John Taylor Gatto for detaljerne (scroll ned her)






Læs lidt af det, som John Taylor Gatto har skrevet. Hans forfatterskab sætter skolesystemet ind i en større kontekst. Derfra er der ingen vej tilbage. Så ser man, at en ny nordisk skole kun vil kunne rejse sig fra asken, når den gamle - metaforisk set - er blevet brændt ned til grunden. Den legendariske lærer og kritiker John Taylor Gatto:

What does the school do with the children? Gatto states the following assertions in "Dumbing Us Down":
 
It makes the children confused. It presents an incoherent ensemble of information that the child needs to memorize to stay in school. Apart from the tests and trials that programming is similar to the television, it fills almost all the "free" time of children. One sees and hears something, only to forget it again.


It teaches them to accept their class affiliation.
It makes them indifferent.
It makes them emotionally dependent.
It makes them intellectually dependent.
It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem).
It makes it clear to them that they cannot hide, because they are always supervised.

Dumbing Us Down - John Taylor Gatto
 
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto (Intro + Hour 1 of 5)

Lad det her være tilstrækkeligt at sige, at skolen derfor både begrænser børnenes frihed og deres selvstændighed, hvilket kultiverer afhængighed. Da afhængigheden forhindrer børnene i at lære at klare sig selv, betyder det, at skolen forhindrer børnene i at blive voksne. Skolen skaber derfor ikke voksne, frie og selvstændige mennesker men erstatter voksenlivet med et voksensurrogatliv som børnevoksne - eller voksne, som stadigvæk går med ble. Kidults, som de kaldes på amerikansk.

Voksenlivet er for mig at se lig med self-reliance, og da man ikke kan være self-reliant uden at være fri, er voksenlivet også ensbetydende med frihed. Ved at tage børnene ud af skolen og hjemmeundervise dem i stedet for, har vi derfor givet dem helt andre muligheder for at udvikle sig i fred og fordragelighed med støt voksende frihedsgrader på vej mod at blive voksne mennesker.

Bemærk venligst at frihed som defineret her ikke er i modstrid med at forpligte sig, Frihed som defineret her er fravær af tvang, vold og trusler om vold. I et ægteskab tvinger ingen mig til at være sammen med min hustru, og jeg tvinger ikke hende til ar være sammen med mig. Netop dette helt fundamentale aspekt har gjort det muligt for os at aftale, hvordan vi gør dette her på en måde, der varetager vores alle sammens tarv så meget som muligt og så godt som muligt. Pointen er, at vi har forpligtet os i frihed, fordi vi begge selv ville, ikke fordi nogen satte en pistol for vores tindinger. Det gør hele forskellen.

Når min nevø futter rundt herhjemme, sker det den dag i dag gennem megen bevægelse. Selv når han sidder og laver matematik, læser russisk eller læser i en spændende bog sker det typisk med megen bevægelse. Han er en fantastisk klatrer og har bevægelse i blodet, ikke som en danser som hende koreografen som blev nævnt i Ken Robinsons TEDtalk men som en klatrende panter.  Sådan har han altid været - og ved at frigøre ham fra skolens internaliserede magtstrukturer og undervise ham i vores familie, der er baseret på frihed og self-reliance, har vi givet ham en chance for engang som frit skabende voksent menneske at kunne dele sine vidunderlige og uvurderlige gaver med verden.


                                                        ___________

Staten - Velfærd som Kamofleret Voldfærd (fra 2014):

* Velfærdsstaten er ikke det, som folk, der støtter den, tror, at den er. Den er ikke lavet for at hjælpe de svage, men det er det, der har været argumentet og det, der indtil videre har legitimeret, at man har rejst dette mægtige statsapparat.

* Velfærdsstaten er blevet rejst for at få folk til at acceptere rejsningen af statsapparatet på vej mod opløsningen af både velfærdsstaten og nationalstaten.

* Desuden har vi kunnet bilde os ind, at vi var "rige", mens vi i virkeligheden blev fattigere og fattigere.

* Velfærdsstaten har desuden tjent til at give os en oplevelse af, at "Danmark" var noget "særligt". (Tager man velfærdsstaten væk, hvad er der så tilbage? Måske er det én af grundene til at nogen, ikke alle, forsvarer velfærdsstaten med næb og kløer).

* Blot for at gøre det klart for læseren: Jeg er for velfærd men ikke nødvendigvis velfærdsstaten. Dette er svært at forstå for dem, der kun kan tænke velfærd inden for velfærdsstatens tankeramme. Det tolkes let som om jeg er ligeglad med andre mennesker, især de fattige, de svage, de gamle, de syge. Intet kunne være mere forkert.

* Desuden er det min opfattelse, at velfærdsstaten er en død sild, og at tilhængerne af velfærdsstaten må se i øjnene, at løftet om velfærd til alle ikke kan indfries. Dette hænger sammen med, at velfærd skal finansieres, og pengene ikke er til det mere. Underskuddet er gigantisk - næste år måske 115 millarder - og det er så stort, at det kun er et spørgsmål om tid, før Danmark vil blive underlagt teknokratisk styring a la Grækenland og Italien, idet Danmark er dumme nok til at underlægge sig europagten.

* Hvis læseren mener, at man kan dække underskuddet ved at hæve ejendomsskatterne, skatter og afgifter på varer og tjenesteydelser osv., vil jeg blot minde vedkommende om, at det vil svare til at tage en spand vand fra den ene ende af poolen og pøse den ned i den anden ende. Desuden er det en grundregel, at det at hæve skatter og afgifter i krisetider kun vil forværre den. Meget kan siges om det. Konklusionen vil være: Det er game over and out for den danske velfærdsstat, om man vil det eller ej.

* Velfærdsstaten var en del af det, som The Daily Bell kalder "the dreamtime" - en periode i det 20. århundrede, hvor følgende model for livet i den vestlige verden blev rullet ud: Du får gratis uddannelse og sundhedsydelser, vuggestuer, børnehaver og fritidshjem, betaler til den fælles velfærd, evt. investerer i fast ejendom og på aktiemarkedet og sparer op til din alderdom (med folkepension til alle) med et plejehjem som sidste station inden the great gig in the sky. Det ser godt ud på papiret (og var også godt i starten, fx da bistandshjælpen rent faktisk både var en bistand og en hjælp til at klare sig i dårlige tider). I dag er folk i færd med at vågne op: Det hele var en løgn.

* Staten kan ikke virke gennem kærlighed, næstekærlighed og medfølelse. Staten kan kun virke gennem vold. Man kan derfor ikke have en velfærdsstat uden også at have en voldfærdsstat. Velfærd og voldfærd hører uløseligt sammen i velfærdsstaten. Idag er velfærden væk men volden er tilbage. Og det, kære læser, var det, der var meningen fra starten - ikke meningen hos dem, der af et ægte hjerte mente, at velfærdsstaten kunne hjælpe de svage, og dem der mener, at det er den bedste måde at gøre det på. Men det var det, der var meningen hos dem, der var de egentlige ophavsmænd til dens etablering.

* Velfærdsstaten opløser den ægte medfølelse, hvor man giver til andre, hjælper andre, drager omsorg for andre, af et ægte hjerte, et ægte engagement i hinandens ve og vel. Velfærdsstaten opløser den personlige ansvarlighed og etablerer i stedet for en velfærdspat, der over tid - for en stadigt større del af den danske befolkning, fører til psykisk og åndeligt forfald. Det er ikke et tilfælde, at antallet af syge og svage stiger. Det er blot en konsekvens af, at vi ikke længere lever i overensstemmelse med vores oprindelige natur, som sande mennesker.

* Fordi velfærdsstaten lever gennem vold, og fordi velfærdsstaten er et kollektivistisk foretagende, opløses over tid de positive menneskelige karakteregenskaber. Et barn i den danske folkeskole vil fx opleve krænkelser af sin personlige ejendomsret til egen krop, tanke og vilje konstant - fra barnet møder om morgenen til lektierne er lavet om aftenen. Et barn i den danske folkeskole har ikke mulighed for at tænke og handle selvstændigt og selv etablere motiverende læringsmiljøer med ligesindede, hvor de kan lære ting, der har varig værdi. Et barn i den danske folkeskole må i stedet for nøjes med fordummende, kollektivistisk indoktrinering, hvor "det sociale" fylder mere på skoleskemaet end at udvikle varige personlige og åndelige kompetencer, der kan bære barnet gennem hele livet. Læs op på lektien ved at studere John Taylor Gatto, og du vil forstå, hvad jeg mener. Bemærk dog forskellen på det, man siger om folkeskolen, og det man rent faktisk foretager sig i folkeskolen. De fleste danskere bakker op om det første men er uvidende om det sidste. Tænk dig derfor godt om iden du kritiserer dette afsnit.

* På sygehusområdet har vi fået et "frit valg". Dette er dog ikke et frit valg, idet ejendomsretten omkring ens egen krop er opløst, og man derfor må nøjes med de ydelser, som "man", dvs. politikerne, influeret af særinteresser, stiller til rådighed. Et barn der vælger mellem to par bukser eller to kjoler om morgenen vælger ikke frit, idet det er de voksne, der stiller disse muligheder til rådighed. Magten er derfor hos de voksne, og det er åbenlyst, at det er sådan. Det er dog ikke åbenlyst, at magten ikke er hos "borgerne", der modtager "velfærdsydelser" men at denne magt ligger hos dem, der skal give dem ydelserne. "Det frie valg" af sundhedsydelser er derfor en barnagtig måde at behandle voksne mennesker på, hvor man dog alligevel holdes ansvarlig for at være syg pga. "livsstilssygdomme" - en påstand, der er en sandhed med voldsomme modifikationer. Bemærk at man som borger i den danske velfærdssump kan blive klemt mellem på den ene side manglende indflydelse på egen sundhed i den profylaktiske fase, idet man fjerner kosttilskud, der kunne holde én rask, og de mangelfulde "tilbud" som gives på den anden side. Er du til alternativ behandling, er det bare synd for dig. Det er dog også synd for os andre, idet vi kommer til at betale overpris for sundhedsydelser, der er under middel.

* Bemærk i både eksemplet med folkeskolen og sundhedsvæsenet, at det er det at det er gratis, der legitimerer, at man ikke selv må bestemme! Tænk venligst dette grundigt igennem. Du vil finde, at der med gratisprincippet overalt følger en indskrænking af dine frihedsgrader med. Der findes formentlig ikke nogen undtagelser, idet "vi alle" jo har en interesse i, at "de fælles midler" bruges "mest hensigtsmæssigt"... Intet er gratis, selv det som er gratis.

* Selvom velfærdsstaten er død, fordi det ganske enkelt ikke er muligt at opretholde det vi forstår ved velfærd på grund af samfundets tiltagende armod, vil voldsfærdsstaten ikke blive rullet tilbage. Tværtimod vil vores frihedsgrader blive indskrænket mere og mere, indtil indskrænkningen er total og den totale stat er blevet indført.

* Den totale stat har hele tiden været endemålet, og velfærdsstaten har været det middel, som bestikkelse, der har gjort, at folk har fundet sig i, at deres frihedsgrader er blevet indskrænket mod, at de fik "velfærd" i den anden ende. Folk hoppede på den - du, kære læser, hoppede på den, og jeg gjorde såmænd også, barn af velfærdsstaten som jeg nu en gang er.

* Idag er folk mere og mere klar over, at velfærdsstaten er en død sild. Det er Danmarks sidste hellige ko - uden den er Danmark ingenting - og der er stadigvæk mange, der kun kan tænke velfærd inden for en statsramme, så derfor - fordi det er den sidste hellige ko, og fordi man ikke kan tænke velfærd uden for velfærdsstaten - vil mange forsvare den til det sidste. Men flere og flere mennesker gennemskuer hver dag, at det hele var et stort svindelnummer, at der var en skjult dagsorden bag det hele, og at kejserens nye klæder er skrårem og seler...

* Som om ovenstående ikke var nok, er det også sådan, at middelklassen i den vestlige verden, også i Danmark, skrumper mere og mere ind. Skal man have et stærkt og levedygtigt samfund, må man have en stærk middelklasse. Derfor er middelklassen altid elitens dødsfjender nr. 1. Centralbankssystemets fiat currency cirkus undergraver middelklassen. Sådan har det været altid, men nu kan selv de mere velstillede folk i middelklassen mærke, at levestandarden ikke længere kan opretholdes. Vi er kun kort tid fra, at tusindvis af familier yderligere må gå fra hus og hjem og komme på ikke-eksisterende offentlig forsørgelse, idet krisen ikke vil forsvinde, der vil ikke komme noget opsving, før - som minimum! - at vi har været igennem en depression (en recession/depression er den periode, hvor kuldsejlede investeringer elimineres og nye mere bæredygtige ting sættes i gang - denne proces er vi ikke gået i gang med endnu, og faktisk har politikerne i Danmark, på EU-niveau og i USA helt som forventet gjort det stikmodsatte af, hvad sund økonomisk fornuftig tilsiger - nemlig at lade økonomien rette sig selv op gennem decentral human action - hvilket kun vil gøre den endelige smerte meget, meget, meget værre). Pointen er lige her, at det vil blive værre, før det vil gå fremad, og at både de fattige og middeklassen nu mærker, at virkeligheden banker på - velfærdsstatens dreamtime er over and out.

* Fordi velfærdsstaten er et svindelummer, som kræver, at folk accepterer indskrænkning af frihed på den ene side mod at få velfærdslunser på den anden, og derfor kræver, at velfærdsstaten kan legitimere sig selv over for befolkningen - det gælder også for statsvældet i det hele taget, er spørgsmålet derfor, hvad der sker fremover med netop denne legitimering. Hvis velfærden reduceres mere og mere for hver dag der går, skattetrykket stiger uden at velfærdslunserne kommer, hverken til de fattige, de syge, de gamle og middelklassen (der også kan rammes af både fattigdom, sygdom og få behov for ældrepleje), så kommer det til at knibe med legitimeringen. Hvorfor have en velfærdsstat, som skulle hjælpe de svage, de fattige, de syge og de gamle, hvis de svage ikke hjælpes, de fattige bliver fattigere, de syge ikke bliver raske, og de gamle bare ligger og rådner op i deres eget skidt?

* Og fordi velfærd og voldfærd hænger sammen som to sider af samme værdiløse nikkelmønt, vil folk også i stigende grad stille spørgsmålstegn ved, hvorfor vi overhovedet skal have hele dette voldsomme statsapparat... og hvem har resourcerne til at gribe ind over for dette? Det har middelklassen. Middeklassen, hvor samfundets intellektuelle sidder, kan gribe ind over for dette - protestere, arbejde politisk osv. - for at demontere både velfærdstaten og voldfærdsstaten. Derfor, kære læser, er det nødvendigt, at statsvældet legitimerer sig over for middelklassen. Kan du se det?
 
Argumentet er, at det er i middelklassens egen interesse at bakke op omkring velfærdsstaten, så de kan leve i tryghed fra de ellers syge og sultne horder...

Det er naturligvis ikke godt, at man sparker på dem, der ligger ned. De, der lever på samfundets bund, har brug for medfølelse og hjælp, ikke foragt. Men fordi velværden er under afvikling, betyder det, at artiklens forfatter i virkeligheden beder os om at bakke op om en velfærdsstat uden velfærd, hvor kun voldfærden er tilbage.

Hvordan det kan være i nogens interesse, må mane til eftertanke.
Eliten ved godt, hvordan tingene egentlig hænger sammen, er klar over, at den er helt gal med befolkningens opbakning til både velfærds- og voldfærdsstaten. Den er helt gal. Folk - både de fattige, de syge, de gamle, de svage og middelklassen som endnu ikke tilhører disse fire kategorier - bliver i stigende grad klar over, at dreamtime er forbi, at det hele var et svindelnummer.

Jeg skriver det lige igen: Man er i eliten klar over, at befolkningerne ikke længere bakker op omkring systemet. Derfor skal de ind i folden igen - før det er for sent. Det sidste er i hvert fald håbet. Jeg mener, at det er for sent - velfærdsstaten er en død sild, og at man må forholde sig til dette faktum, uanset om man er tilhænger af velfærdsstaten eller ej - og folk er ved at finde ud af, at de er blevet snydt.

Voldfærdsstaten er derimod ikke en død sild. Den lever i bedste velgående. I hvert fald lige nu. Derfor vil de fattige, de syge, de gamle og de svage og en stadigt mindre middelklasse også blive sparket til i fremtiden. I værste fald som "a boot stamping on the human face forever."

Men når the dreamtime stopper og folk vågner op til det mareridt, der er virkeligheden, har det en tendens til at sætte folk i chok for en stund. Før eller siden vil folk dog sætte sig i bevægelse - via human action - og tage sagen i egen hånd.

Mit ønske er her, at vi vil gå frem til en tid, hvor vi tager os af hinanden direkte, som frie medmennesker, med ægte medfølelse og engagement, baseret på frivillighed. Om staten vil lade os gøre det er en anden sag.



Historisk set blev ideen om “nationens gæld” skabt for at sikre tilbagebetaling til bankerne efter en krig, selvom kongen, der havde skrevet under på lånene, der havde givet ham penge til at føre krig for, var faldet i kamp. En konge hæfter med sin personlige underskrift - hvis man derimod kan overbevise folk om, at de er “et folk”, der hæfter for “nationens gæld”, så vil man snildt kunne hælde gældsbyrden over på ikke blot de nulevende men også de kommende generationer. Ikke blot skal mennesker som har optaget lånene - politikerne - betale dem tilbage, det skal alle nulevende og kommende slægter, indtil gælden er betalt. Det er jo skide smart.

Det første problem, vi støder ind i, er, at det er naturligt for os at tænke i “nationer”. Vi bor i “Danmark” eller “EU” men det er sådan set lige meget - der er tale om en konstruktion af et fællesskab, der ikke eksisterer på andet plan end på konstruktionens. Det eksisterer i kraft af at blive postuleret, at det eksisterer, og så længe folk dels køber den, dels føler sig tvungede til at købe den.

Det er et af elitens mest subtile våben - dette at omtale mennesker, som nogen, der tilhører en gruppe og så give gruppen rettigheder og pligter, som enhver, der falder ind under gruppen, skal leve op til, uanset om den enkelte ønsker det eller ej. “Det græske folk”, “nationen”, “statsgælden”, selv “hvide”, “sorte”, “muslimer”, “homoseksuelle, “børns rettigheder, “kvindernes rettigheder, “ligelån” osv. er alle ord, der signalerer, at den der bruger ordet tænker og formulerer sig i kollektivistiske baner.

Alternativet, og det jeg mener er det korrekte, er at tænke i rettigheder for enkeltpersoner. Men det fungerer bare ikke for eliten, for kun gennem henvisning til kollektiver kan de argumentere for “the greater good” og dermed ophæve den enkeltes rettigheder.

Hvis enkeltpersoners ejendom er ukrænkelig, kan man ikke stjæle den gennem skatteopkrævning. Det ville jo være tyveri. Derfor argumenterer man for, at den enkelte må ofre noget af sine frihedsrettigheder, herunder sin ejendomsret, således at et større gode, en større retfærdighed eller rimelighed, kan blive opnået. Hvor tyveri af den enkeltes ejendom i et samfund, der opfatter frihedsrettigheder som naturgivne og ukrænkelige, ikke vil være tilladt, fordi det vil blive gennemskuet som tyveri, så er det OK, hvis tyveriet i form af skatter skal bruges på at betale “nationens gæld”. Den enkelte er jo en del af nationen, derfor er det ‘rimeligt.

Det er ikke “grækerne” der har brugt for mange penge men deres politiske elite, der har optaget lån på deres vegne, stukket det meste i egne lommer, så den almindelige græker ikke har set en krone. Nu er eliten over alle bjerge, og den almindelige græker skal betale den gæld, som de ikke selv har optaget. At det er svært at forstå vidner om, hvor dybt vores programmering er, og hvor subtilt det er.


____________________________________________________

FODNOTE

[1] Utopi/Dystopi - Anarki som Kaos, dvs. uden Staten. viser sig at være en falsk antagelse - ikke kun Hunza-folket har levet 'alternativt', men Zomia-folket har levet 'utopisk' i tusinder af år (uden en Stat) - det viser, at det ikke er en umulighed i fremtiden for Vesten, forskel i teknologi uagtet - mentalitet spiller en stor rolle, og de er ikke sjæleligt primitive (som mange er blevet i Vesten FUBAR for ikke at tale om det 'Darth Vader' imperie vi konfronteres med i vesten):

'The literacy rate of the Hunza valley is believed to be more than 90%. Virtually every child is educated up to at least high school level. The lifestyle of People of Hunza is very simple and they are considered to be very warm and welcoming'. - link

Om Zomia:

'For two thousand years the disparate groups that now reside in Zomia (a mountainous region the size of Europe that consists of portions of seven Asian countries) have fled the projects of the nation state societies that surround them—slavery, conscription, taxes, corvée, epidemics, and warfare.[1][2] This book, essentially an “anarchist history,” is the first-ever examination of the huge literature on nation-building whose author evaluates why people would deliberately and reactively remain stateless.

Among the strategies employed by the people of Zomia to remain stateless are physical dispersion in rugged terrain; agricultural practices that enhance mobility; pliable ethnic identities; devotion to prophetic, millenarian leaders; and maintenance of a largely oral culture that allows them to reinvent their histories and genealogies as they move between and around states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed

I am sure that Adam Kokesh ('Libertarian' who now wants to become the US president) did not read James C. Scott's 'The Art of Not Being Governed':
 

"Except for one highly intelligent review earlier this year in Reason, this book seems to have attracted no attention at all from libertarians. Yet this is a book libertarians with an enthusiasm for history will find very, very interesting indeed... "Until shortly before the common era," Scott writes, which is to say the last 2000 years, "the very last 1 percent of human history, the social landscape consisted of elementary self-governing kinship units that might, occasionally, cooperate in hunting, feasting, skirmishing, trading, and peacemaking. It did not contain anything one could call a state. In other words, living in the absence of state structures has been the standard human condition." [....] ..Scott argues, we find ourselves today with a "huge literature on state-making, contemporary and historic, [that] pays virtually no attention to its reverse: the history of deliberate and reactive statelessness. This is the history of those who got away." ...."it appears that much, if not most, of the population of the early states was unfree; they were subjects under duress." And "it was very common for state subjects to run away." For "living within the state meant, virtually by definition, taxes, conscription, corvée labor" — that is, forced, unpaid, short-term labor, such as being required to work a day or two unpaid on a road-repair crew — "and, for most, a condition of servitude."
https://mises.org/library/art-not-being-governed

The Zomia civilization are runaway, fugitive, maroon communities who have, over the course of two millennia, been fleeing the oppressions of state-making projects in the valleys — slavery, conscription, taxes, corvée labor, epidemics, and warfare.

Most of Homo Sapiens today have been macro-conditioned to servitude, to accept their servitude and the 'inevitability' of the state as a necessary 'safe' space. Scott says that Zomia is the biggest remaining area of Earth whose inhabitants have not been completely absorbed by nation-states, although that time is coming to an end (swallowed up by the expanding powers of the techno-feudalist 'civilization').BTW; the concept 'mind control' is etymologically close to Govern (control) + Ment (mind) - the current track of civilization is in reality an increasingly intolerable prison planet made possible through state structures (currently on its way to global government).


Escapees (before the final breakdown of modern civilization) will nonetheless find hope (through Scott's evidence fx), that it's possible to make 'Exodus' emigrations from the failed western states and create communities without rule in 'Zomia'-like groups in the post-post-modern age (even leftists like Hardt and Negri said the same), and especially before the NWO and Hunger Games society in USA and EU becomes even more crazy draconian and obvious for all to see. The last groups might have to endure a Sovjet-like horror Hunger Games regime of the NWO, before that breaks down also....

Dee Hock: (Dee Hock is the inventor of the VISA credit card, the founder and former CEO of Visa International):

“I think we're on the knife's edge where we're going to undergo cataclysmic institutional failure. We have it all over the world. Look at some of the countries that are in a state of perpetual starvation and revolution; there's just no present institutional structure capable of dealing with societal complexity and diversity with anything other than more centralization of power and increasing violence and force. So we'll have one of two possible scenarios. The first would be
that we'll have a massive series of institutional failures, social chaos, and enormous societal and biological carnage —far more than we now experience — and then maybe out of that will emerge these new concepts. But I think if we do experience massive institutional failure, the first thing that will emerge, before we see the new forms, is almost total centralization of power and control, which will result in a widespread loss of liberty and freedom. That will last for a while,but it ultimately will not work, much like the Soviet Union. And when that collapses, then we're in for a second period of social carnage that will be unbelievable.”
- Dee Hock, interview-excerpt, 2002

Many of the Greeks who had the means to leave their country, in 2010, can no longer emigrate today. What was looking harmless by then may be called accelerated impoverishment by now. The standard of living is falling as the birth rate does and crime is rising as the suicide rate does. People from most other countries, who wonder about their future, should have a look at Greece. What's happening there now is probably going to happen in every other industrialized country.
Starting with the smaller countries, as they are the 'trial balloons', followed by the larger ones. Many people believe it's a temporary crisis but things are getting worse all the time and eventually, it will no longer be possible to emigrate"
- Emigrate While You Still Can

"What do you see for the future?

Anthony Sutton: Chaos, confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State. The individual is the stronger; and will win. The state is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual. Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them."
https://darktruthorg.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/skull-bones-us-banks-financing-hitler-trance-formation/

A Government can be more benign and less benign of course, but a Stateless condition with small units has not seen the light of day in the West...yet. The claim that society would descent into automatic Chaos is a misnomer. Compared to the monopoly of State violence, small units would be preferable as it could only be through the Leviathan State structures that +260 millions human beings have been killed by the State in the 20th Century (Democide), and that does not account for war (a third of the number in total) - only through initial acceptance of State constructions and State monopoly of violence, could such 'mass industrial' murder have taken place in the first place, not with non-State constructions, IMO.