In Part I, I looked at the Great Reset through the lens of class, focusing quite a bit on my disappointment with the middle class who, in Orson Welles’ words, is the enemy of society.
Another gooder … especially the big-picture summing-up at the end.
“So debating with someone over whether people who wear green hats have inferior cultures to people who wear red coats is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, but only the pig likes it. It is, by design, a divide-and-rule distraction.” — Divide-and-rule is the operating system, installed by the puppeteers, running in the background mostly unobserved.
“It is quite possible to discuss replacement theory rationally without scapegoating.” — Key point and one that cannot be overstated.
“The obsession with culture and cultural homogeneity is an extension of identity politics and therefore a form of oppositional wokeism. The fight for freedom can be boiled down to the fight for universal rights and values.” — All true. But it's also true that shared values are not unimportant for social cohesion.
“The fact that they have managed to keep us all distracted while the monetary system smoulders does not change the reality that it is happening. All the crises since 2020 are signposts to the New World Order, dateline 2030.” — Yup!
“The programme of change has been broadcast by System mouthpieces. They are preparing you. They have told you that AI will make humans superfluous. From ramped up stratospheric aerosol injection, inexplicable persistent fog lasting days, to self-replicating mRNA vaccines, the assaults on human health and the food supply are accelerating. The pandemic planners are now desperately clamouring for a bird-flu plandemic. Lifespans will continue to shorten as annual excess deaths become the norm. To help you shuffle off this mortal coil, they are passing legislation to make it easier to kill yourself.” — How starkly real-horror-show-like!
Please don't forget the Free Masons, the Trilateral Commission, other secret societies, the three city states of the City of London, Vatican City and Washington DC. Just saying!
The big picture, cogently explained. Major bonus points: this guy has a sense of humor. Takeaway quote: "stop being middle class and join the Resistance."
Best writing i’ve found on over-hyped Substack (with the exception of Mark Crispin Miller's News From Underground, and i’m prejudiced because he's a friend). You're also making me reexamine Desmet and RFKJ, two voices that helped me navigate the covid shitshow. Looking forward to more.
One major problem to overcome is a sizable proportion of the population's reliance on mainstream media for their 'opinions'. The manipulation of the readership is endless and takes many forms. To break this brainwashing is very difficult, as they're so often primed for such attempts, with readily pre-programmed retorts like "conspiracy theorist", "far right" etc.
I guess we should take heart from surveys that indicate trust in MSM has never been lower than it is now. It might take a bit of time for the dinosaur to become extinct.
The most astonishing thing about Simon Elmer is that he could see, and was very good at describing, how propaganda works with reference to “divide and rule” (or, at least, that’s how I recall it. Things have gotten so weird with him that I wonder if he ever said what I thought he said!). So Elmer could point out how “Islam” (as a meme revolving around the old favourite of occidental demonising of the Eastern “other”) could be drilled into service for the ruling class .... and then, having pointed out the con, Elmer submitted to it! In effect he was saying that Muslims were being used .... but they really were The Enemy anyway!
Elmer’s performance here as “turnaround” makes me wonder if he was some kind of deep state operative from the start. A bit like Nafeez Ahmed who was first to arrive on the 9/11 Truth movement.... and later torpedoed it.
I've never seen such a phony picture. It's as if someone typed "black", "psychopath" and "voodoo" into an AI image generator. Or as if someone is auditioning for the African version of The Walking Dead.
That photo is mad. But then, if that's an authentic representation of the guy, it sort of confirms that severe mental illness is what we are really dealing with here? I mean the guy has no lips. That is odd to say the least!
I'm as equally stunned by the self-contradiction and confusion on display by Elmer. This might be evidence of remote mind control...let's hope it doesn't happen to us!
It is possible that I have completely misunderstood you here, but I will press on.
You say you have never seen a definition of cultural components that attribute behaviour to culture; nor any proof of causative effect; nor that the population is influenced by the components.
Surely culture is manifested and supported through behaviours of any individuals following the precepts of that culture. For example, the Renaissance is defined by the dawning on mankind that it, collectively and individually, was more than a pawn in God's game. Men could do more than scrape and scrabble like animals, but could invent, innovate, paint, build, write, read, learn. The causative effect of that was vanishing point and dimensional painting skills along with many other artistic advances; beautifully laid out cities, gardens, water features; a massive rise of literacy and education; patronage of the poor and disadvantaged who could offer something beautiful to an emerging culture, to name just a few effects. The lowest tiers of population were definitely influenced by these components because they had a whole lot more to eat and more chances for employment. There was also pressure exerted upon them to be better citizens, which is a significant achievement for that time. Another, albeit contrasting, example is a culture wherein many of its individuals believe that non-Muslims are infidels and must be eradicated. The values of this culture have permitted some of its members to target young girls as commodities for their own pleasure and income. No need for more explanation but for this: that culture did nothing to bring them to justice or to end their hunting games, much less to deplore their despicable actions. As a result, their criminal activity is going to tarnish their entire culture and I am blowed if I know why this is such a reprehensible concept.
If you want to attribute behaviour to cultural components, you have to define all the components that make up that culture. Not just the ones you like. I submit that it is impossible to define all the influences that make up a culture in its entirety. Culture is not some formula of ingredients that you can easily isolate and then prove how all the ingredients go towards making a soup called human behaviour. That was the point I was making.
Culture is the social manifestation of human thought and ideas. Within a geographical space, that gives rise to a complex array of institutions that are formed and informed by those thoughts and ideas, from art, to music, to politics, and so on. By its very nature culture gives rise to both beauty and horror.
It amazes me that people can look at Western culture today and see it only as a Good Thing or a net positive. And yet all the evidence of how Western culture has manifested tells us that we are hurtling towards a totalitarian, bio-digital and financial technocracy perpetuated by medical establishment terror, industrial scale censorship, legislation (planned and actual) limiting individual freedom, lies about everything from climate alarmism to ‘vaccines’. We both know this is only the tip of the iceberg. The average library could not store the books it would take to properly elaborate on everything that’s gone wrong and crimes committed by the Western political establishment in the past 20 years alone. Western culture is also responsible for the Inquisition, endless wars of savagery and…we could go on and on.
The point is, culture as the social manifestation of thoughts and ideas is not fairy dust that sprinkles only all the Good Things you mentioned.
Here is my analogy for what you’ve just done. There is a shop called The West and there is a shop called The Other. Both shops stock products that everyone wants and likes. These are on the first floor. Both shops also have a basement that stocks cheap and nasty stuff that no-one in their right minds wants, but there will always be suckers and fools. You know The West shop very well, so you always visit the first floor and get nice things that please you. You’ve heard of the basement but have never seen it or you’ve turned a blind eye to it because you really like The West shop. You’ve never been into The Other shop but all the customers you hang out with always tell you about the stuff that comes out of its basement. You don’t even entertain the possibility that The Other shop might have a first floor with some interesting and useful stuff there.
In your world, The West shop is all first floor and The Other shop is all basement.
It is not part of Muslim culture that ‘infidels’ must be eradicated. It is the basement part of The Other shop that you see and is pedalled by a few nasty bad salespeople who are giving the whole shop a bad name. Similarly eugenics and transhumanism are not part of the first floor of The West shop. They are in the basement. They exist. They are Western ideas. They were practiced in the West and these ideas still hold sway in ruling elite circles although they try to market them differently. But you have not recognised them as part of The West shop.
The ”hunting games” are the despicable acts of criminals, but they are not unique to The Other shop and they are not bought by the vast majority of customers who go to shop at The Other shop. They don’t like it any more than you do.
The West shop actually produces similar behaviour that also goes unpunished. Of all the ruling ‘elite’ names connected with the sex trafficking crimes committed on Epstein Island, who has been prosecuted yet? The most powerful criminals in the West don’t get prosecuted for the same crimes that were committed by the people you’ve chosen to highlight.
To summarise, I want to see ALL criminals prosecuted for despicable crimes but I utterly reject an attempt to paint one culture as all goodness and light and another as all darkness and evil. This is not intellectually tenable.
Thanks Rusere for taking the time. I figured you would say a few of the things you have - picking only the components I like; implying that the West shop doesn't produce similar behaviour; that not all Muslims believe others are infidels; great cultures can produce horror; powerful criminals from all areas of the world getting away with their crimes - but I thought I would not have to clarify those as already 'givens' in my albeit limited knowledge and understanding of the makeup of cultures and societies and my piece was already very long! I was more trying to expand on the comment you made about not ever having seen a definition of cultural components that attributed behaviour to culture (my paraphrase is in good faith and hopefully not inaccurate). Good and bad, both West and East (for want of better terms) over the thousands of years of ancient and modern cultures, do most certainly provide definitions of cultural components that do most certainly allow - and in most instances expect - particular behaviours because these behaviours are aspects of their culture.
Do you believe that, given how complicated culture is, cultures can be accurately defined to the satisfaction of all, or at least a majority, of the people living in that cultural space? Have you, for instance, seen a definition of English culture? If so, who approved it as 'accurate'? Is it so agreeable to a wide enough spectrum of people that it would get the nod in a referendum? Did it include all the negative influences and institutional failures that drag a place down, like wokeness, or belief in bullshit science like saving the planet from CO2, or voting for a uniparty and thinking that's democracy? Because those things are definitely a big part our political culture but most people wouldn't characterise them in the way I have. They would think they're marvellous ideas, and that any behaviour towards them would be even more marvellous. But you, I and many others wouldn't want any part of that culture, and yet we couldn't deny that it exists.
Other than some glib, trite statement of values like 'fairness', how do you arrive at an inventory of all the thoughts and ideas that are swirling around in a place and influencing individual and institutional behaviour. How do you establish what percentage of the population thinks that the different components, assuming you could even agree on them, are good, and not bad, things?
Whatever definitions of culture that you think were provided by cultures in the past is irrelevant to the point I seek to make. The point being - why would you think these definitions were an accurate reflection of what was actually happening in those societies at that time, and could be agreed upon as accurate? Were the behaviours that were allowed or expected (to use your terms) adhered to like a set of rules that everyone followed for fear of falling foul of the culture police?
You're trying to paint culture as something tangible, something that can be agreed to outside of a small circle of your closest friends and family. As you can see, I remain unconvinced. I mean you used the phrase "most certainly" twice, but there is nothing certain about culture in my opinion.
Furthermore, I am not so ignorant and bigoted that I am not aware of the 'first floor' or even the 'second or third floor' of the contributions others cultures have made to our libraries, our knowledge of the ancient sacred and profane texts that were once housed in libraries of the ancient world; the close relationships there once were between scholars from the Arab and Islam peoples and the West; the brilliance of their artworks as manifestations of the minds that already existed well before - say the Renaissance, to use that era again - and nor do I think of 'other' (as opposed to 'Western') as basement cultures. You made a blanket judgement of me there in your analogy and have made a mass of assumptions about me which are untrue and irrelevant to my original comment. As well, your summary paragraph has nothing to do with definitions of cultural components and behaviours attributable to culture. Thanks again for taking the time to wade through.
Yeah, ok. But that was not apparent in your statement so why would I assume your beliefs when I know nothing about you? I can only answer based on the information you provide. You're having a go at me for failing to guess what your beliefs are. Your original comment displayed a slant that I responded to. Now I know more!
Regarding the lack of scientific evidence that human produced C02 is causing catastrophic global warming, and the reason why billionaires and royalty insist that it does:https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/why-does-the-rockefeller-family-fund?r=1iggn
Thanks. Will take a look at that.
Another gooder … especially the big-picture summing-up at the end.
“So debating with someone over whether people who wear green hats have inferior cultures to people who wear red coats is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, but only the pig likes it. It is, by design, a divide-and-rule distraction.” — Divide-and-rule is the operating system, installed by the puppeteers, running in the background mostly unobserved.
“It is quite possible to discuss replacement theory rationally without scapegoating.” — Key point and one that cannot be overstated.
“The obsession with culture and cultural homogeneity is an extension of identity politics and therefore a form of oppositional wokeism. The fight for freedom can be boiled down to the fight for universal rights and values.” — All true. But it's also true that shared values are not unimportant for social cohesion.
“The fact that they have managed to keep us all distracted while the monetary system smoulders does not change the reality that it is happening. All the crises since 2020 are signposts to the New World Order, dateline 2030.” — Yup!
“The programme of change has been broadcast by System mouthpieces. They are preparing you. They have told you that AI will make humans superfluous. From ramped up stratospheric aerosol injection, inexplicable persistent fog lasting days, to self-replicating mRNA vaccines, the assaults on human health and the food supply are accelerating. The pandemic planners are now desperately clamouring for a bird-flu plandemic. Lifespans will continue to shorten as annual excess deaths become the norm. To help you shuffle off this mortal coil, they are passing legislation to make it easier to kill yourself.” — How starkly real-horror-show-like!
“The whoops is the whole plan.” — T-shirt gold!
...and the shared values are encapsulated in Natural Law!
Ideally.
As I've said elsewhere - preach! '...we're not turning up to play the part they've assigned to us' - abso-bloomin-lutely!
I am a little disturbed about the idea of wrestling with a pig though, just to prove that the pig doesn't mind getting dirty...
Please don't wrestle with pigs...metaphorically or otherwise. It's a lose-lose proposition.
Please don't forget the Free Masons, the Trilateral Commission, other secret societies, the three city states of the City of London, Vatican City and Washington DC. Just saying!
A comprehensive list could turn into a book!
The big picture, cogently explained. Major bonus points: this guy has a sense of humor. Takeaway quote: "stop being middle class and join the Resistance."
Thank you!
Best writing i’ve found on over-hyped Substack (with the exception of Mark Crispin Miller's News From Underground, and i’m prejudiced because he's a friend). You're also making me reexamine Desmet and RFKJ, two voices that helped me navigate the covid shitshow. Looking forward to more.
RFK Jnr is a Zionist. I afford Zionists the same level of trust I afford a bag of snakes.
One major problem to overcome is a sizable proportion of the population's reliance on mainstream media for their 'opinions'. The manipulation of the readership is endless and takes many forms. To break this brainwashing is very difficult, as they're so often primed for such attempts, with readily pre-programmed retorts like "conspiracy theorist", "far right" etc.
I guess we should take heart from surveys that indicate trust in MSM has never been lower than it is now. It might take a bit of time for the dinosaur to become extinct.
The most astonishing thing about Simon Elmer is that he could see, and was very good at describing, how propaganda works with reference to “divide and rule” (or, at least, that’s how I recall it. Things have gotten so weird with him that I wonder if he ever said what I thought he said!). So Elmer could point out how “Islam” (as a meme revolving around the old favourite of occidental demonising of the Eastern “other”) could be drilled into service for the ruling class .... and then, having pointed out the con, Elmer submitted to it! In effect he was saying that Muslims were being used .... but they really were The Enemy anyway!
Elmer’s performance here as “turnaround” makes me wonder if he was some kind of deep state operative from the start. A bit like Nafeez Ahmed who was first to arrive on the 9/11 Truth movement.... and later torpedoed it.
And on the topic of occidental demonising, see this photo of the Southport killer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8j453e7z1o
I've never seen such a phony picture. It's as if someone typed "black", "psychopath" and "voodoo" into an AI image generator. Or as if someone is auditioning for the African version of The Walking Dead.
That photo is mad. But then, if that's an authentic representation of the guy, it sort of confirms that severe mental illness is what we are really dealing with here? I mean the guy has no lips. That is odd to say the least!
I'm as equally stunned by the self-contradiction and confusion on display by Elmer. This might be evidence of remote mind control...let's hope it doesn't happen to us!
It is possible that I have completely misunderstood you here, but I will press on.
You say you have never seen a definition of cultural components that attribute behaviour to culture; nor any proof of causative effect; nor that the population is influenced by the components.
Surely culture is manifested and supported through behaviours of any individuals following the precepts of that culture. For example, the Renaissance is defined by the dawning on mankind that it, collectively and individually, was more than a pawn in God's game. Men could do more than scrape and scrabble like animals, but could invent, innovate, paint, build, write, read, learn. The causative effect of that was vanishing point and dimensional painting skills along with many other artistic advances; beautifully laid out cities, gardens, water features; a massive rise of literacy and education; patronage of the poor and disadvantaged who could offer something beautiful to an emerging culture, to name just a few effects. The lowest tiers of population were definitely influenced by these components because they had a whole lot more to eat and more chances for employment. There was also pressure exerted upon them to be better citizens, which is a significant achievement for that time. Another, albeit contrasting, example is a culture wherein many of its individuals believe that non-Muslims are infidels and must be eradicated. The values of this culture have permitted some of its members to target young girls as commodities for their own pleasure and income. No need for more explanation but for this: that culture did nothing to bring them to justice or to end their hunting games, much less to deplore their despicable actions. As a result, their criminal activity is going to tarnish their entire culture and I am blowed if I know why this is such a reprehensible concept.
If you want to attribute behaviour to cultural components, you have to define all the components that make up that culture. Not just the ones you like. I submit that it is impossible to define all the influences that make up a culture in its entirety. Culture is not some formula of ingredients that you can easily isolate and then prove how all the ingredients go towards making a soup called human behaviour. That was the point I was making.
Culture is the social manifestation of human thought and ideas. Within a geographical space, that gives rise to a complex array of institutions that are formed and informed by those thoughts and ideas, from art, to music, to politics, and so on. By its very nature culture gives rise to both beauty and horror.
It amazes me that people can look at Western culture today and see it only as a Good Thing or a net positive. And yet all the evidence of how Western culture has manifested tells us that we are hurtling towards a totalitarian, bio-digital and financial technocracy perpetuated by medical establishment terror, industrial scale censorship, legislation (planned and actual) limiting individual freedom, lies about everything from climate alarmism to ‘vaccines’. We both know this is only the tip of the iceberg. The average library could not store the books it would take to properly elaborate on everything that’s gone wrong and crimes committed by the Western political establishment in the past 20 years alone. Western culture is also responsible for the Inquisition, endless wars of savagery and…we could go on and on.
The point is, culture as the social manifestation of thoughts and ideas is not fairy dust that sprinkles only all the Good Things you mentioned.
Here is my analogy for what you’ve just done. There is a shop called The West and there is a shop called The Other. Both shops stock products that everyone wants and likes. These are on the first floor. Both shops also have a basement that stocks cheap and nasty stuff that no-one in their right minds wants, but there will always be suckers and fools. You know The West shop very well, so you always visit the first floor and get nice things that please you. You’ve heard of the basement but have never seen it or you’ve turned a blind eye to it because you really like The West shop. You’ve never been into The Other shop but all the customers you hang out with always tell you about the stuff that comes out of its basement. You don’t even entertain the possibility that The Other shop might have a first floor with some interesting and useful stuff there.
In your world, The West shop is all first floor and The Other shop is all basement.
It is not part of Muslim culture that ‘infidels’ must be eradicated. It is the basement part of The Other shop that you see and is pedalled by a few nasty bad salespeople who are giving the whole shop a bad name. Similarly eugenics and transhumanism are not part of the first floor of The West shop. They are in the basement. They exist. They are Western ideas. They were practiced in the West and these ideas still hold sway in ruling elite circles although they try to market them differently. But you have not recognised them as part of The West shop.
The ”hunting games” are the despicable acts of criminals, but they are not unique to The Other shop and they are not bought by the vast majority of customers who go to shop at The Other shop. They don’t like it any more than you do.
The West shop actually produces similar behaviour that also goes unpunished. Of all the ruling ‘elite’ names connected with the sex trafficking crimes committed on Epstein Island, who has been prosecuted yet? The most powerful criminals in the West don’t get prosecuted for the same crimes that were committed by the people you’ve chosen to highlight.
To summarise, I want to see ALL criminals prosecuted for despicable crimes but I utterly reject an attempt to paint one culture as all goodness and light and another as all darkness and evil. This is not intellectually tenable.
Thanks Rusere for taking the time. I figured you would say a few of the things you have - picking only the components I like; implying that the West shop doesn't produce similar behaviour; that not all Muslims believe others are infidels; great cultures can produce horror; powerful criminals from all areas of the world getting away with their crimes - but I thought I would not have to clarify those as already 'givens' in my albeit limited knowledge and understanding of the makeup of cultures and societies and my piece was already very long! I was more trying to expand on the comment you made about not ever having seen a definition of cultural components that attributed behaviour to culture (my paraphrase is in good faith and hopefully not inaccurate). Good and bad, both West and East (for want of better terms) over the thousands of years of ancient and modern cultures, do most certainly provide definitions of cultural components that do most certainly allow - and in most instances expect - particular behaviours because these behaviours are aspects of their culture.
Do you believe that, given how complicated culture is, cultures can be accurately defined to the satisfaction of all, or at least a majority, of the people living in that cultural space? Have you, for instance, seen a definition of English culture? If so, who approved it as 'accurate'? Is it so agreeable to a wide enough spectrum of people that it would get the nod in a referendum? Did it include all the negative influences and institutional failures that drag a place down, like wokeness, or belief in bullshit science like saving the planet from CO2, or voting for a uniparty and thinking that's democracy? Because those things are definitely a big part our political culture but most people wouldn't characterise them in the way I have. They would think they're marvellous ideas, and that any behaviour towards them would be even more marvellous. But you, I and many others wouldn't want any part of that culture, and yet we couldn't deny that it exists.
Other than some glib, trite statement of values like 'fairness', how do you arrive at an inventory of all the thoughts and ideas that are swirling around in a place and influencing individual and institutional behaviour. How do you establish what percentage of the population thinks that the different components, assuming you could even agree on them, are good, and not bad, things?
Whatever definitions of culture that you think were provided by cultures in the past is irrelevant to the point I seek to make. The point being - why would you think these definitions were an accurate reflection of what was actually happening in those societies at that time, and could be agreed upon as accurate? Were the behaviours that were allowed or expected (to use your terms) adhered to like a set of rules that everyone followed for fear of falling foul of the culture police?
You're trying to paint culture as something tangible, something that can be agreed to outside of a small circle of your closest friends and family. As you can see, I remain unconvinced. I mean you used the phrase "most certainly" twice, but there is nothing certain about culture in my opinion.
Furthermore, I am not so ignorant and bigoted that I am not aware of the 'first floor' or even the 'second or third floor' of the contributions others cultures have made to our libraries, our knowledge of the ancient sacred and profane texts that were once housed in libraries of the ancient world; the close relationships there once were between scholars from the Arab and Islam peoples and the West; the brilliance of their artworks as manifestations of the minds that already existed well before - say the Renaissance, to use that era again - and nor do I think of 'other' (as opposed to 'Western') as basement cultures. You made a blanket judgement of me there in your analogy and have made a mass of assumptions about me which are untrue and irrelevant to my original comment. As well, your summary paragraph has nothing to do with definitions of cultural components and behaviours attributable to culture. Thanks again for taking the time to wade through.
Yeah, ok. But that was not apparent in your statement so why would I assume your beliefs when I know nothing about you? I can only answer based on the information you provide. You're having a go at me for failing to guess what your beliefs are. Your original comment displayed a slant that I responded to. Now I know more!