Sacred Destabilization • Part Two: Resources

By: Eric • August 16, 2022



“The gullibility of the average citizen, his willingness to accept what is told him if it is said loudly enough and with sufficient force is well-known. Mass psychology and mob determination have been exploited down the age….But this negative receptivity can be easily turned to good ends as bad.”

–The Spiritual Hierarchy, Lucis Trust, 1982

What Motivates Them?

The battle is real and the enemy is the system. The word system carries a great weight and what we will do here is show the signs of what the system has accomplished and what the system is aiming for. Power; securing power comes from resources. Control over the resources gives the system power. Maintaining, enhancing and expanding the reach of the system comes with carte blanche authority over the resources.

We have reached a point I strongly feel is their endgame.

Because now…the resource….is YOU.


“Man must be either the Anvil or the Hammer—let each make his choice, and then complain not…

If you are the Hammer, strike your fill…

Otherwise the Anvil – and STAND YOU STILL.

-Theron Q DuMont – “Mastermind

Stakeholder Globalism • American Mind

Source: https://americanmind.org/salvo/stakeholder-globalism/

Armed security personnel stand guard on the rooftop of a hotel, next to letters reading “Davos” surrounded by snow, near the Congress Centre on January 25, 2018 in Davos, eastern Switzerland. / AFP PHOTO / Fabrice COFFRINI (Photo credit should read FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

At the end of the twentieth century, the triumph of capitalist democracy convinced many that the field of human advancement had been cleared of adversaries. In the ensuing decades, Westerners were shocked to discover that field had filled with technological challengers.

As Cambridge historian David Runciman notes in How Democracy Ends, “the information technology revolution has completely altered the terms on which democracy must operate.” Capitalism is becoming less democratic and democracy less capitalist. Surveillance cameras are embedded in more places; cell phones track our movements; programs log our keystrokes.

The resulting information is fed into databases and assembled into profiles of unprecedented depth and fungibility. The decline in personal privacy might be worthwhile if it were matched by comparable levels of democratic choice and transparency. But for the most part, it is not. Unauthorized opinions are increasingly censored online, while giants like Amazon, Apple, and Google bar disfavored customers and businesses from their marketplaces.This shifting relationship between capitalism and democracy has not gone unnoticed by the West’s sharpest critics. At his first press conference in 20 years, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid was asked about the Taliban’s commitment to freedom of speech. Journalists, Mujahid suggested, should ask the “promoters of freedom of speech” at Facebook why his government is banned from posting on Instagram and WhatsApp.The irony is rich.

In the heady millenarian days at the “end of history,” Silicon Valley imbued Big Tech with the wide-eyed spirit of the idealistic counterculture. Today, however, these former cultural nonconformists have become global gatekeepers. Twitter’s decision to suspend President Trump after the unrest at the Capitol opened the floodgates for tech companies and other services to ban political dissidents from their platforms.What is becoming clear is that there was a crucial flaw in the end-of-history vision.

What if the capitalists lose interest in democracy or find it inconvenient?

An intriguing concept almost unused in journalism but common in political discourse is a “globalist state” whose members have given up part of their sovereignty in return for a say in their neighbors’ affairs.Big Tech is at home in this globalized schema. Like most billionaires, Mark Zuckerberg regards the concept of nationalism with open hostility. The “struggle of our time,” Zuckerberg suggested, pits the “forces of freedom, openness and global community against the forces of authoritarianism, isolationism and nationalism. Forces for the flow of knowledge, trade and immigration against those who would slow them down.”Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain this phenomenon will be disappointed. What we are dealing with here are often marginal reforms—a trickle rather than a flood. From western Europe to sub-Saharan Africa, policy-makers are moving many policy fields “upwards,” to the international or supranational arena, and “downwards” to NGOs and private companies.

This has been accompanied by a modest measure of structural change which has allowed powerful bureaucracies in the UN more control over national affairs.One influential advocate of this outlook is the former British prime minister Theresa May. Speaking to the House of Commons on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, May described the events unfolding in the region as a “major setback” for UK foreign policy, adding: “We boast about Global Britain, but where is Global Britain on the streets of Kabul?” May found it “incomprehensible” and “worrying” that the UK was not able to bring together an alternative peacekeeping alliance.Globalism is best conceptualised less as a fantastic conspiracy so much as an emergent phenomenon among elites with overlapping interests, the goal of which is to deterritorialize politics. Members of the professional and managerial elite—journalists, economists, humanitarian aid workers, technologists—have adopted a very different attitude to borders than sectors of society who are bounded to their community’s territory.

As Zygmunt Bauman observed in the 2000s, territorial allegiances have become a class-specific property.Why history hasn’t endedIt would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of this change. For many hundreds of years, nationalism was the bedrock of international relations. Foreigners were routinely considered to be outsiders and could not be full members of the moral community.Over the past couple of decades, however, we have seen a dramatic reversal of this rule: pre-political ties are expanding to include larger groups, nations, families of nations, and perhaps even all humans. As a result, elite positions on global issues actually tend to be highly incoherent, and the need to consult “stakeholders” often leads to more liberal policy outcomes.A case in point here is the British government’s failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel in record numbers.

In 2019, the British Home Secretary, Priti Patel, campaigned on a platform of opposition to mass immigration, withdrawal from key human rights laws, and hostility to illegal entrants and bogus asylum seekers. Her views accurately reflected the opinions of the great majority of Conservative members, as well as great swathes of the electorate. They were not, however, acceptable within 10 Downing Street, so she failed to muster the support necessary to “take back control.”This state of affairs illuminates one of the central paradoxes of Western politics.

Although the technical capacity of states to control immigration has increased rather than diminished, and border control is widely held to be common sense by the majority of the population in every country, most Western governments are reluctant to implement effective enforcement of their own immigration laws. There is a gap between what politicians say and what politicians do, because immigration policy is considered above the pay grade of the masses. It is the domain of the globalist managers.

The withdrawal of the elites: Globalism belongs to a species of liberal thinking that deplores barriers to trade and disapproves strongly of borders. ‘’Openness,” “inclusion,” “diversity”: the globalist is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against the exigencies of geography. The key articulators of this movement now include not only Silicon Valley but also the military-intelligence complex, NGOs, and non-institutionalised protest groups whose global operations are facilitated by smartphones.Globalism has ushered in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the lower middle class to the superrich, and from towns to cities. Today, a large firm in a modern city can source its capital in Shanghai, locate its industrial plant in Wolfsburg, and tap information from a database in Bangalore. Moreover, thanks to improvements in transport technology and infrastructure, businesses can hire large numbers of overseas graduates whose skills could not be realistically recruited from the domestic labor market. This explains why big business and its agents of opinion are without exception supporters of “Global Britain.”Meanwhile, at the lower end of the labor market, foreign workers are increasingly used to fill jobs that are considered too degrading for the native population to undertake.

Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter for some debate, but it is beyond question that the wealthy now prefer employing cheap labor from abroad. Today, as David Edgerton argues in The Rise and Fall of The British Nation, “a new anti-egalitarian snobbism is permissible, and a certain reactionary chic possible.”This is a formidable combination. And it is easy to see why elites don’t want to give up on it, at least not yet.

However, these policies must be debated with the utmost honesty if we are to do what is best for our country and for the planet. There is no denying that a gap has opened up between civilians, soldiers, governments, and corporations: the “we” feeling seems no longer to have a voice among our leaders.Contrary to what many have said, globalism does not rid the world of the nation state. It does, however, delimit it. Once in a position of power, globalists will hive off the functions of the state and farm them out to a complex range of extra-governmental organizations and semi-independent bodies. Their key function is to push “the rules of the game” beyond the reach of democratic politics, the strategy of deterritorialization. To a large extent, therefore, conflicts over territorial sovereignty have replaced many of the more familiar ideological battles of the twentieth century.

IS THIS IT?

Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve Bank made an announcement that the United States government is in danger of defaulting on it’s loan obligations to the Federal Reserve Bank.

The debt ceiling must be raised by October if the United States is not to have it’s credit worthiness severely downgraded, US Treasuries to come crashing down, with it – the stock market (which has been pumped full of Federal Reserve $$$$$ freshly printed since at least February 2020), the real economy (what’s left of it) and sending the literal atomic blast-wave throughout the global financial system and all asset bubbles connected to the USD as the world’s reserve currency….this is the techno-judeo-pandemica-epstein-wipeout scenario the Davos minion have dreamed of…for the collapse of the USD formally gives way to the International Monetary Fund’s digital, sovereign, special drawing rights to officially pave the way for a one world digital currency.

IS THIS IT?

This is Zionism…

Alex Jones on InfoWars, watching his shows circa 2007 is my first recollection of the use of the term “Globalists”…I first learned of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Illuminati, Freemasons, Skull and Bones and other “secret rulers of the world” in 2002. Learning about these groups; their objectives, members, histories – in the end they all are motivated in creating a One World Order one way or another. It was much later, circa 2011, that I unearthed the common denominator amongst them all – Zionism.

Judaism is a faith. It teaches of man’s relationship with the Creator. Zionism is a perversion of Judaism. The average Boomer, Conservative, Liberal, Moderate/Centrist and also people that are not politically aligned think of Zionism as a “pro-Israel” cause. But it’s not. It’s far more militant, elitist, exclusionary and radical.

Paraphrasing Genesis 1:25 – 1:30, it states that “man shall multiply and subdue the earth, man shall rule over the lands and the seas, man shall have dominion over the cattle, fish and birds – man shall have dominion over every living thing on the face of the earth.” Remember, this is the Old Testament, the first book of the Torah, the most sacred collection of scripts in the Jewish religion.

At the time of Jesus Christ, the highest rabbinical priests, Kohanim, the descendants of the biblical figure Aaron, kohanim enjoy special privileges. They were the ones that felt threatened by Jesus and influenced the Romans to crucify Jesus. The Kohanim are to this day the leaders of the faith and they too are the authors of the battle plan of Zionism.

Christianity began to blossom and spread throughout the Middle East and beyond after Christ. This was a threat to the Kohanim. And finally, in 70 AD, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and began to banish the Jews. This combo, the rise of Christianity and the expulsion from their holiest city, led to what today is the political ideology called Zionism.

The Talmud was written over the course of three centuries, 200-500 AD. Within the Talmud are the justifications that the expelled are the Chosenites, the Chosen People, God’s Chosen People. Let’s circle back to Genesis 1:25-1:30. “Man shall have dominion over the entire earth and every living thing that exists upon it.”

The key here that as God’s Chosen People, those words are written FOR THEM. They are ordained by God to establish dominion over the earth. This is Zionism, the perversion of Judaism.

And there it is. The Talmud is the playbook to return to Jerusalem. And the Zionists shall establish dominion over the earth via a kingdom, court and temple in Jerusalem. The One World Order will be centered in Israel.

David Ben-Gurion was a Premier of Israel. Regarding Zionism as a practical doctrine to be realized personally by immigration to the Land of Israel, he settled in Palestine in 1906, working as a laborer in the orange groves and the wine cellars of Jewish agricultural settlements established two decades earlier by the first Zionist settlers, and as a watchman in the Galilee. Regarding my synopsis of what Zionism is, he is quoted as stating the following in 1962:

.

“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy.

“Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, ail other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.

“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.

Pretty loaded and spot-on stuff. Granted, he said this in 1962, when asked how he envisioned the world 25 years down the line. Yet he hit the nail on the head as he pinpoints:

  • The transformation of the United States into a welfare state.
  • The United States being led by men of science (think not only the Coronavirus Bat-Flu Regime, but men of science – technology – Zuckerberg, Gates, Bazos, Musk and the like).
  • The emergence of the European Union, which is infact exactly a socialist, democratic regime.
  • Lastly, the ultimate realization of Zionism, is plainly stated – a shrine of prophets to serve all continents – the seat of the SUPREME COURT OF MANKIND.

And here we are…