Measures of Control

What is the greatest fear for the controlling archons of our world?

The answer is: the plebs discovering how flimsy the substrata of their control, the machinery of it all, really is. The elites have worked tirelessly to establish the illusion of a grand, impermeable monolith—that irreducibly oppressive panopticon of unspoken ‘rules’ and social limits, Overton windows, and statutory ley lines known only to them and meant to deliberately obfuscate us—a towering obelisk emblemizing the totality of their control. They do this through fear, social programming, and mass media hypnosis triggering traumas on our grasping minds wired through perpetual distress and wrapped in agonizing tension. They erect labyrinths of legal codices to browbeat us into submission with the inexhaustible weight of their esoteric jurisprudence. All meant to convey a sense of crushing weight, to endow us with a futility of purpose in the face of such colossal structures; the System, the Order, their interlacing web of socio-political-economic supremacy.

But it is their ultimate parlor trick, the impregnable carapace concealing the soft flesh of the beady-eyed crab enfolded in the darkness within, terrified that its shell may be getting brittle by the years-long flay of salted winds. The concept thereof is of the most esoterically unspoken in our daily life, but not by virtue of iron-clad restrictions or guardrails, per se, but rather due to its patent incommensurability; in other words, few know how to semantically even define, describe, or discuss this ‘veil of the unseen’ beneath which our society bustles like a flock of stochastic pigeons.

Because of this impenetrability, we remain blind to the controlling threads of our world, which furl into the darkness above our heads. There are few people with the intellectual virility and analytical incisiveness to discuss this matter in any genuinely revelatory way, as opposed to playing at sophistry and subversion like a double agent.

One of the few with the moral-psychological heft that I’ve seen enlarge on this topic is Eric Weinstein of the ‘intellectual dark web’ fame, just days ago on the Chris Williamson podcast. Those wanting a rare glimpse behind the curtain should hearken to the segment below, which I’ve cut for length:

What he ominously alludes to is a series of secret foundational agreements undergirding our world, whose gossamer fragility belies their expansiveness such that they require an iron-clad enforcement mechanism to prevent any presumptuous young parvenus from wittingly or unwittingly resetting them. In this case, as Eric points out, that upstart happens to be Trump. What he inadvertently reveals extends much deeper than that, and lifts the veil on the centuries’ old esoteric hierarchy over our lives.

There are a series of old agreements, he intimates, which in some cases can be reduced to mere ‘handshakes’ between no-longer-extant parties, that underpin the stability of world markets and act as levees against the breakout of global war—or so goes the framing. Many of these explicit and implicit compacts were made in the post-war era and can only endure if they are not repeatedly challenged by some upstart with ‘fresh ideas’ every four years. You see, the caprice of the masses cannot be allowed to put at risk the foundational structures of society; as such their upkeep requires a kind of ‘silent authority’ to maintain the world’s institutional stability in order to ‘keep us all safe’.

But therein lies the crux of this invisible tyranny: it is reconciled with the characterization of being some great Katechonic force, keeping the ever-leering collapse of civilization at bay for our sakes. Closer examination, however, reveals it to be nothing more than the Great Lie of the generational elite for the continuity of their power.

A real-world example of this is given in an excellent article by the ever-insightful Alex Krainer:

The slow dying of American democracy

He prefaces with the notion that:

…the American political system seems to be evolving toward the model of its former colonizer, Great Britain[.] It suggests that like Britain, the U.S. is being ruled by a hidden oligarchy. Behind the establishment's self-serving facade, Britain is not a democracy at all, and that fact is obvious once you scratch below the surface.

He quotes a seminal work by Carrol Quigley called Tragedy and Hope, which he remarks was too controversial for its own sake, being abruptly withdrawn from printing with all surviving copies reportedly destroyed.

But what the renowned Council on Foreign Relations insider had to say about the British political system in particular is instrumental in understanding the esoteric world of ancient aristocratic codes smokescreening us as the modern masquerade of ‘Democracy’:

Here's what Dr. Quigley had to say about the British political system: 

▪️ “…the greatest difference between Britain and the US rests in the fact that the former has no constitution. This is not generally recognized (p. 461)” 

▪️ “… many of the relationships which are covered by conventions are based on precedents that are secret (such as relationships between monarchy and Cabinet, between Cabinet and political parties, between Cabinet and civil service, and all the relationships within the Cabinet) and in many cases, the secrecy of these precedents is protected by law under the Official Secrets Act… (462)” 

▪️ “It is seriously stated in many books that the Cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons, and controlled by it. In truth, the Cabinet is not controlled by the Commons but the reverse." (463) 

▪️ [This should sound familiar:] The fact that there are no primary elections in Britain and that party candidates are named by the inner clique of the party is of tremendous importance and is the key to the control which the inner clique exercises over the House of Commons, yet it is rarely mentioned in books on the English political system." (463)

▪️ “There is also no separation of powers. The Cabinet is the government and ‘is expected to govern not only within the law, but, if necessary, without law or even against the law’. There is no limit on retroactive legislation, and no Cabinet or Parliament can bind its successors. The Cabinet can enter into war without Parliament’s permission or approval. It can expend money without Parliament’s approval or knowledge… It can authorize violations of the law, as was done in regard to payments of the Bank of England in 1847, in 1857, or in 1931. It can make treaties or other binding international agreements without the consent or knowledge of Parliament…" (469) 

▪️ "The idea, widely held in the US, that the Commons is a legislative body and the Cabinet is an executive body is not true. Legislation originates in the meetings of the inner clique of the party, acting as a first chamber. If accepted by the Cabinet it passes the Commons almost automatically. The Commons, rather than a legislative body, is the public forum in which the party announces the decisions it has made in secret party and Cabinet meetings and allows the opposition to criticize in order to test public reactions. Thus all bills come from the Cabinet, and rejection in Commons is almost unthinkable…" (469)

▪️ “It is not generally recognized that there have been many restrictions on democracy in Britain… effectively curtailing the exercises of democracy in the political sphere. (470)” [things got a lot worse since 1966]

▪️ “Since the two chief parties in England do not represent the ordinary Englishman, but instead represent the entrenched economic interests directly, there is relatively little ‘lobbying,’ or attempting to influence legislators by political or economic pressure. (477)” 

Each point above is of paramount importance in understanding the entirety of the Western system of governance, as virtually every abiding country follows in similar stead despite in some cases not sharing an outwardly corresponding structure. The British system is exemplified because of its historical prominence, but the ‘deep state’ establishment has reproduced the essential blueprints in almost every related country.

For instance, like Britain the US can be said to have no real primary elections, in practice, either. Weinstein explains in the opening video precisely how the establishment games the primaries as a filtration process to select the “house candidate” via “magician’s choice”, leaving the spellbound audience with the false impression they are participants. Just as Quigley notes the deception behind the House of Commons being a legislative apparatus, in the US, Congress likewise acts merely as the “stage” for which legislation already drafted by corporations is performatively debated.

Sure, there’s a myriad of irrelevant smaller articles genuinely written by congressional lawmakers to effect the mirage that laws are forged in and by Congress—but those are trivial, token, throwaway statutes. The real stuff is entirely crafted by corporate lobbyists and their lawyers, then passed to Congress merely to—sometimes—haggle over the finer, more trivial points thereof, and then sign off on the law.

This process was documented many times, no better than the following several-years-old report:

The video explains how the corporate interests write the bills, merely leaving blanks for where congressional legislators are obliged only to fill in their names and signatures, as nothing more than menial notaries. This extends to virtually every step of the ‘democratic’ process in the country. Who can recall how Citigroup hand-selected Obama’s entire cabinet during his first term?

Read the first paragraph below:

Most people forget that Obama served a single three-year term in the Senate before becoming president. Consider how absurdly short that is in retrospect; imagine a current three-year senator promoting to president. That’s the equivalent of Raphael Warnock becoming commander-in-chief this November.

It underscores that Obama was a manufactured, bought-and-paid-for mannequin installed as the front-facing PR mouth for a sub-layer of corporate-financial operatives. This ties into Weinstein’s next most valuable gem regarding the necessary ‘continuity’ required to maintain the long-standing global ‘order’. For a failsafe to ensure this continuity can never be broken by a rogue actor, the elites are forced to shape the very fundaments of the system itself into supporting the filtration of all “outsiders” to enforce a strict purifying channel of promotion for the vetted ‘candidates’ to the top. Trump, as Weinstein notes, was the first to unexpectedly break through this system by being from the ‘outside’, having never priorly served in office nor the military.

Here’s where things really cut down to the gristle. This inviolable Continuity charter that can never be tampered with has been brought up to a reverentially holy status by those whose interests are fatefully tied to maintaining it. It is sold to us as the Katechonic bulwark against something unimaginable: an abyss, the Apocalypse of the world—which only they as stewards can be entrusted with valiantly holding back. In reality, the truth seems in total opposition: the planet stands to flower into an Elysian field should the artificial ‘bulwark’ of this Old Nobility’s ‘Order’ be finally dashed upon the rocks and dissolved.

What they’ve sold to us as a deathly-necessary prophylactic—for our own good—is nothing more than the generational plan to maintain their cartel’s supremacy over the schematics of the world. Utilizing their control of media and institutions, they’ve erected such an aura of fear around these structures that newer generations simply assume them to be beyond questioning, as if they represent some untouchable arche substrate of our world, akin to a kind of global Constitution which can never be impugned or challenged. “If you stop paying your taxes, the whole Order of safety will collapse—spelling calamity! Is that what you WANT?”

For the first time, CIA and MI6 chiefs made a joint appearance, warning that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are disrupting "the international world order", which is "under threat like never before since the Cold War."

But it is the furthest thing from the truth.

Seek long and hard enough, and you’ll find moments of rare clarity, when these elites confer on us a fleeting whisper of the reality behind the scenes.

One such moment few have seen, was provided by Sberbank CEO Herman Gref—a Russian of ethnic German descent. At the Davos meeting in 2012 he gave a shockingly candid speech that revealed the controls behind the velvet curtain.

Listen carefully, as I have placed two versions of the video back to back, first subtitled then dubbed:

For good measure, I’ll even provide the full text for those who have trouble viewing videos, as it is that important. But first, for context: his speech is even more significant due to the fact it happened at the height of Occupy Wall Street, which at the time threatened to ignite the globe in anti-authoritarian uprisings. At a panel titled "Breaking the managerial Impasse: the wisdom of the crowd or the authoritarian genius", interlocutors wrestled with the question of allowing global citizens more say in their governments by giving them a stronger voice, so that movements like the Occupy one could not threaten the elites’ yoke. In short, it was a frank discussion amongst the globalist ruling class as to how they could pacify humanity to stave off the coming torch-and-pitchfork moment.

Gref chums it up with blood-soaked pals Tony Blair and Colin Powell

Bankster bigwig Gref was sickened by this mewling from his colleagues, and immediately interjected with ‘What you say is a terrible thing (giving people more power).’

And so:

"You say terrible things," German Oskarovich said when he heard this, and took the reins of the discussion into his own hands. - why? You propose to transfer power virtually into the hands of the population."

"You know," Gref continued, "for many millennia this issue has been a key issue in public discussions. And we know how many wise heads have thought about this topic. At one time, Buddhism was born in this way: the heir to one of the richest families in India went to the people and was horrified at how badly the people live. And he tried to help the people, and he tried to find the answer, what is the root of misery, how to make the people happier. He didn't find the answer, and as a result, Buddhism was born. The key ideology that he laid down is the rejection of desire... People want to be happy, they want to realize their aspirations, and there is no way to realize all their desires. The economic mode of production that Marx dreamed of has not yet been realized, so we need to work. And it's not a fact that everyone will get this job, and it's not a fact that everyone will get the desired salary, and it's not a fact that they will be satisfied. And at the same time, if everyone can participate directly in the management, what will we manage?"

"The great Minister of Justice of China, Confucius," Gref continued, "started out as a great democrat, and ended up as a man who came up with a great theory of Confucianism, which created strata in society (here German Oskarovich even waved his hand to make it more convincing). And great thinkers like Lao Tzu came up with their own theories, encrypting them, afraid to convey them to the common people. Because they understood that as soon as all people understand the basis of their "I", they identify themselves, it will be extremely difficult to manage, i.e. manipulate them. People don't want to be manipulated when they have knowledge.

In Jewish culture, Kabbalah, which taught the science of life, was a secret teaching for 3,000 years, because people understood what it meant to remove the veil from the eyes of millions of people and make them self-sufficient. How do I manage them? Any mass management implies an element of manipulation. How to live, how to manage such a society, where everyone has equal access to information, everyone has the opportunity to judge directly, to receive unpreparated information from government-trained analysts, political scientists and a huge machine that is lowered on their heads?..

And I honestly find your reasoning a little scary. And I don't think you quite understand what you're saying."

This is how frightened he was by the arguments of the panel participants about the need for crowdsourcing, all sorts of "electronic governments", etc. Our government is afraid of all this like fire.

-Source

There’s so much that can be unpacked about the momentously revealing speech that it would take an entire article on its own. Suffice it to say, the elites believe that all of human history has been a kind of altruistic coddling on their behalf of the masses. They truly believe themselves endowed with a divine providence in stewarding over humanity, keeping us serfs from operating against our own interests—because it is only they, the elites, who retain the sacred duty of husbanding those interests, or even understanding what they are to begin with; we are deemed too simple to decide what’s best for us.

Most interesting is how Gref invokes a litany of historical examples of control mechanisms to justify his stance. Everything from Confucianism, Buddhism, to Kabbalah is measured by its ability to control human destiny in the hands of Gref’s class. In the most abstract way, he’s right, of course—humans do seem to devolve into chaos without a strong guiding hand. The ultimate paradox of our human journey is that everyone who inherits power thinks themselves to be justly deserving of carrying the mantle of authority and responsibility. We resent the elites for so openly exposing human nature, yet most of us would likely take their stance upon ascending to their stature. The view from the top differs greatly from the alleyway narrows, after all.

Of course, Gref’s argument is a classic one—it is Plato’s great ‘Noble Lie’, used by elites since time immemorial to justify their need to manipulate and pacify the audience “for their own sake and welfare”.

But the reason it is more relevant than ever before is that for the first time society feels like it has outgrown traditional representative democracy. Society is bursting at the seams as people increasingly intuit the faintness and futility of their voice while things deteriorate around them. And it just happens to converge with the historic moment wherein technology has made possible to have direct representation on every conceivable issue, should we demand it, with digital referendum voting via internet. But they would never allow that, as the controllers cling to the ‘theater’ of indirect representation: our “representatives” merely pretend to care for our demands, paying them occasional lip service, in reality serving their corporate sponsors and donor class. No conceivable reason exists to have ‘representatives’ anymore when technology now allows us the direct democratic intervention on every issue via referendum poll.

But again we return to Gref’s concept, which is a mere adaptation of an ancient Chinese one revolving around “Minyi” and “Minxin”:

Minyi versus minxin.

Behind all the above is the Chinese philosophy of governance, including, inter alia, the two distinctive concepts: minyi and minxin, the former referring to "public opinion", and the latter to "the hearts and minds of the people" (approximate English translation), which was first put forward by Mencius (372 - 289 BC).

Minyi - public opinion of the moment

Minxin - hearts & minds of the people

Minyi is emotional, transient and easily manipulated.

Minxin is the long-term, sober, analytical and ethical thinking.

Minyi or public opinion can be fleeting and change overnight, while minxin or "hearts and minds of the people" tends to be stable and lasting, reflecting the whole and long-term interest of a nation. Over the past three decades, even under the occasionally populist pressure of minyi, the Chinese state has still generally practiced "rule by minxin". This allows China to plan for medium to long terms and even for the next generation, rather than for next 100 days or next election as in many Western countries.

The idea is that, allowing people direct input into their governance subjects them to the caprice of their own Minyi, which is susceptible to momentary concerns with no long term thinking. It’s true, when you consider it. People would vote for everyday things based on the immediate kneejerk reaction of the moment, without ever quantifying the second and third order consequences. Such a rule would likely lead to a brokenly inefficient society.

Chinese have, according to some, adapted the rule of Minxin, which allows leaders to assume a more presumptuous authority over the people’s through-line based on long term planning, which may sometimes clash with their fleeting “in-the-moment” passions and fancies.

As such, it can be supposed Gref’s class is merely adapting a wisely axiomatic Chinese model of rulership. But there is a big difference: this style works for China because it is an ideological ethnostate whose leaders sprout from the common stock. They can be entrusted to have the people’s interests in mind, as they are invested in their success at a rooted level: their cultural destinies are entwined. In the West, the elites appropriating this model are internationalists who adhere to exogenous cultural markers, answer to foreign masters from culturally-incompatible lands, and in general do not have the same telic cultural identity as the people they presume to rule over, and whose fates and futures they devise to steer toward some civilizational end.

There is no better proof of Weinstein’s opening thesis than the fact that they now tried to take Trump out again for a second time in as many months. It’s clear that Trump terrifies them for the very reason that he threatens to potentially undo decades of established secret agreements, the filaments of that diaphanous Order feigning essentiality, yet whose delicate fibers are a pluck away from being unseamed before the world's eyes.

Such a development would open up an unprecedented Pandora’s box. The elites rely on the omnipresence of their Great Illusion—a show that must be maintained at all times, all costs, and across the entire spectrum. To allow a single crack to form in the facade would entail a spidering outward, a runaway fracture leading to the collapse of their whole foundation. That is because if people in a single country under their control can be allowed to witness the lie for what it is, there would be no turning back—the populations of every other nation would immediately begin to question the rationale of their own systems, since they are all part and parcel to the matrix of the whole.

Imagine if Trump really did abolish the IRS as he’s threatened to do, long shot that it is. Once Europe sees the US continuing not only to function, but perhaps even thrive like never before—without a single income tax collected—it would spark the end for the regime. Multiply this outward to every other of our modern controlling paradigms. The Central Banks, for instance: abolish one bank in The System, and the rest fall like dominos. The elites’ greatest fear is for humanity to be given glimpse of even a single working example of life outside their prison-like construct—that same Byzantine codex of esoteric multinational agreements.

But the fault lines may already be forming—because once you introduce even a kernel of the idea, it begins to germinate irrepressibly, widening those concrete spider-cracks into great yawning fissures. Trump may not be the Messiah, but he might be just the dunderheaded codger to lull the archons into enough of a torpor to sneak the Trojan Horse of real revolutionaries past the gates.

---

If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate if you subscribed to a monthly/yearly pledge to support my work, so that I may continue providing you with detailed, incisive reports like this one.

Alternatively, you can tip here: Tip Jar

---