Flat Earth; Enclosed Creationism; Conspiracy (Theory), Memory and Reason – Part Ten:
Resist the evidence; in Satellization [Restraint and Catharsis]: Continuing on the many subjects discussed in my last post that outline the Hegelian dialectical trap of Left and Right politics. The current social climate is focused on individualism, socialism, postmodernism, and so forth; strangely, it all depends on how one views memory and reason. A conspiracy theory has an inherent implication regarding memory, and that is a habit of distortion. This linear perspective focuses on quantification, leading to extreme views relegated within its polarities. The choices of good and evil between light and dark tend to leave out ethics as it becomes a fairy-tale version of memory. To view history through heroes, clashes, triumphs, and tragedies where blood is spilled – the liberation of freedom upon which the national and the individual are built – is ultimately a product of romanticism. A more precise evaluation that’s missing is a component that slides between restraint and catharsis. Blood being spilled is courage for the cause (good or bad), and restraint is a strength of memory, though it’s forgotten due to the ransom hysteria of blood. And the periodic need to defend that cause.
During the Cold War, the suggestion of nuclear annihilation in Cuban waters was something that happened and is an example of restraint in political terms. This very restraint kept them from killing each other. More recently, Australia’s navy was engaged in war games in the South China Sea with the Chinese Navy warships, which was only mitigated by the quality of restraint. Even when the United States requested the Australian Navy to exercise its drills further into the South China Sea. [All of these seem to be a cover for added tensions concerning a trade war – beckoned by a political-right-centric agenda as an effect on an ever-increasing collapse of Globalism]. They denied it, but Australia reinforced its strong intention as allies to the US [so, negging in political terms]. Although not as striking as the fear of nuclear attacks as it was in the Cold War, that same fear with its reflections of Catharsis. Now embedded in comic panels as a doomsday clock [the Watchmen], it captures a time in history and is a symbolic commercial manifestation of memory. Being commercialized, it’s less interested in restraint as it doesn’t sell as opposed to hysteria.
Memory is a product of romanticism and a belief in quantification – the quantifying and ordering of experience is an obsession with stability, which suggests fear, not in its opposite instability, but rather uncertainty and the unknown. When seen through a linear or technical perspective, this makes the memory of history lean towards a psychosis of dysfunctional memory – a rigid memory that is false and, with its rigidity, breaks down compared to vast and unstructured memory. For example, consider Morrison’s view that such atrocities of World War II will never happen again, an assumption that may be true. However, the effect spun into fragments, notably the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Cold War. Memories viewed through these great unstructured waves, with their experience in the personal and social – fit into a collective experience akin to the collective unconscious and conscious.
Memory can also be spatial in addition to being filled with layers because competing elements construct historical events and the events in our personal lives. Memory is always tunnelled through a narrow field to a quantifiable substance and its alternative; memory is an unfathomable form of romanticism. This is often geared towards shaping the unfathomable with experience to a romantic vision that usually morphs into (cult) groups. That imbues perfect love, race, and nation, ultimately a deformed version of memory. However, the very act of restraint is where civilization is most civilized.
Take, for example, when esoteric truthers or historians regard the significance of words in their infancy through their etymology for the proposition of authenticity regarding the ‘word’. The meaning, however, is no longer closer to the idea of context because each word and phrase must be heard or written in the context of others. As well as the significance of how the word was heard at that time, this ultimately entails a thin layer concerning meaning in a single truth because of the complexity of memory. And this is when memory morphs into the opposite of the truth, regardless of the word’s meaning in its current state. There are reverberations of its other, earlier senses. How significant is this concerning biblical literature? There are also signs of apparent uncertainty when it comes to Christian conspiracy groups and their formation of truth when they use the notion of ‘truth’ through the process of etymology.
Catharsis, however, is driven by a reaction more so towards a cathartic gesture, which is a passive, unconscious form of action. When it concerns public affairs, cathartic memory acts as the negative side of layering. It becomes a non-cathartic memory with subtlety and the complexity of restraint – it understands that each action creates new layers of memory. And this can heighten the individual or societal bodies positively or negatively. Healthy memory requires an understanding of those actions.
Cathartic memories are experiences or occurrences of memories formed through one’s lifetime from birth to death, with all the intricacies that apply to society. Creativity is catharsis for the artist and the public. I suspect for the artist-prophet, it would transcend linear time. However, catharsis becomes dysfunctional when organized into an ordering society memory. Take, for instance, the whole ‘woke movement’ [a possible mystery cult movement that is modernized and uses political correctness as its motivation to enforce the discipline of silence. As well as be distractions when you’re being initiated – by proscribing thoughts, identity politics, ideas, and words themselves]. It seems to lack restraint, and so it becomes evident in its deception that it lacks genuine sincerity as it metastasizes into a false-leftist version of good, which will inevitably have an opposite effect. If one views the ‘woke’ movements as a flowing tap set on full, it becomes misrepresented when the gradualness of reaching that full state doesn’t come about steadily.
Alasdair Macintyre eloquently describes these dysfunctions or struggles: “the fragments of a conceptual scheme, parts which now lack those contexts from which their significance derives.” What we have, he says, is the “simulacra of morality” studded with “key expressions,” but the context escapes us. It’s funny how a postmodernist philosopher can best describe what’s missing within this whole ‘culture of woke movement’, seeing how postmodernism is under fire from anti-socialist intellects.
Therefore, any claim to suggest ‘the woke movement’ began in the liberal arts of certain universities, which then made its way through to mainstream media, propagating its ideologies methodically throughout the decades. And this is no more valid than assuming that it was more of a management failure rather than a conspiracy. Woke is more in tune with ideologies being pushed in their most simplistic form, and when this happens, it’s a recipe for disaster. And in many ways, it can be a form of religion, making it cult-like. Like any other ideologies being pushed, it will inevitably be short-lived. The mention of conspiracy shouldn’t stop at the focal point of gestation. Still, they should also mention that the rule of secret societies and elites regulates many universities.
Entertainment industries have taken a hit because of the rise of woke, but predominately from the simulated virus narrative and gas-lighting. It will soon fade because ideologies are transitory, except for fundamentalist ideology. The memory in context is longer and is tied to religion, making it an ideology with a long lifespan.
To further explain what I mean by this failure, let’s return to etymologies, their meaning, and their association with memory. Take, for instance, the word ‘Neo-liberalism’. The word itself has nothing to do with 19th-century liberalism and ‘Neo-conservative,’ which has nothing to do with conservatism. We have here stealing of words – or morphing of words to perpetuate ideas in that censored form, but ultimately, it’s something they’re not. The adoption of established names where their memory has a history, but their true intention is the opposite without memory. To be woke is to be awake stemming from the New Age; awakening – and to be liberal, new-liberal, but ultimately pro-capitalist.
And there is a clear parallel between the ‘cult of woke’ and the ‘cult of neoliberalism.’ This can be found in the schema that political correctness and neoliberalism can be seen as an ideology of something utopian. Which sounds religious, and it entails swapping out the worship of God/gods for something else to Capitalism or a twisted idea of what is right. There was an intellectual cleansing regarding the economy, gestating from the universities as well, to remove the possibility of doubt on speculation of ideas. And this, in effect, left the macro-economist in ideologues’ hands. This failure of management within the educational system parallels the failings of universities that allowed woke ideologies to be present; if one is inclined, it started from the universities. This can result in history being wiped or forgotten, and once you get rid of history, you get rid of the memory. So you’re presented with an economy and views of political correctness as something that it’s not. And it’s further enforced by theoretical experts quoting the invisible hand of God; ‘the market will lead,’ [woke quote: insert here …] which is a low-level religious image.
So, institutional system managers need ideas beyond maintenance and bailouts. And this is because all these business graduates are just repeating previous managers. Who, by this stage, also have no context or memory to run or bravely change that system when an economic crisis looms. The cult of woke or a cult of ideals is that it’s a movement that lacks thought and argument, destroying everything from within. In order of importance, being woke is not as crucial as corruption – not just ordinary corruption, but legal corruption. And this is the kind of corruption Marxists understand, where corruption has the face of Capitalism. Still, it breaks every rule of Capitalism when employees and CEOs take the money out of the bank for themselves, which has nothing to do with job competency.
If the ‘cult of woke’ is about the discipline of silence, they’re overly vocal about it. And their ideas of good are emphasized in the uptake of cancel culture.The silence only comes when you assassinate intuition and imagination. A psychosis must forget by making them aware of certain social situations, but because they’re without the context, they’ve swapped real memory with a false one. Though real memory is not there, to begin with, it can be hijacked – so any enlightenment where apotheosis can be derived from memory will never happen.
And this makes the Woke movement a pointless endeavour. Catharsis is an enemy of healthy memory, which is prevalent in creativity. This can be exemplified in moving pictures – the excellent verse evil motif tries to be timeless but is always ritualistic and constantly accessible. What threatens them is when memory is aimed at permanent uncertainty through the evocation of the imagination and is always brought forth in literature first. Though moving pictures can sometimes capture lightning in a bottle, which captures part of its timeless quality, important archetypal key-frames are usually embedded in the everlastingness of fiction.
The United States’ indecisiveness to be either a Roman Empire or the Roman Republic can be a silver lining. Its failure to be decisive gives an unrecognized effect of restraint. This could be due to a country that was never developed as a true federation as it was generated inside an Enlightenment nineteenth-century model. Countries such as Canada and Australia were conceived in a medieval form from as early as the mid-nineteenth century and never attempted to become classic monolithic nation-states. Instead, they were federation countries with multiple personalities, religions, and languages. While on the surface, the United States is much of that same goal of a national dream, what came with it was a memory of upheaval: racism and slavery, civil wars, etc. I’m not saying Canada and Australia didn’t have their fair share of imperial drama. It’s just that the United States context of memory is far greater, has become an inherited dysfunction, and is still healing from it.
So, what is part of the healing process? The need to forget, but often the need to forget, has a natural reaction, and that is to perpetuate classic racism. Woke is less about the discipline of silence but a reactionary need to forget. The United States is at the precipice of change, whereas Canada and Australia have already graduated. It’s akin to Mediaeval Middle Europe, where racism is included in its multiracial, multicultural, multilinguistic ideas of rational nationalism. The United States missed this and should strive for a continental dream rather than a national one – a decentralized federal structure and a celebration of multiracial, multicultural, and multilinguistic cooperation and creativity.
The Wake of Woke gave rise to anti-woke proponents that attempted to challenge woke-witch-hunters, but both woke and their adversary [anti-woke] equally lacked context. Most take advice from intellects, which is also limited in its memory and context of the subject they debate [the essential-sing Stalin Socialism subject as a conspiracy] that it can veer off to negative nationalism. These types are technical about definitions, like the definition of multiculturalism, which is something that can’t exist. I disagree with people when they say there is no such thing as multiculturalism in an attempt to redefine its meaning through a technicality [remember the ‘word’ and etymology and the environment it’s used in]. Federation countries are built on many different cultures; new cultures grew out of it, like Jazz and Comic Books were invented.
Resist the evidence; in Satellization continued [Morals and Values]: There is a need to differentiate rationalism or rationalism in a philosophical sense from rational-scientism (Nu-Atheism). Given that this is a Flat Earth thesis, we’ve established that Earth’s rotation around the Sun is not a fact. And to proceed with it as a fact only by simulation is a balance between good conscience and a lie and makes for a good debate. The falseness of the current belief system [heliocentrism] as a technical mistake is not as important in the grand scheme. What is essential is how falsity is used as a fact to justify questions that may never be answerable in an absolute way. For if there is such a thing as ‘objective moral values,’ which in Sam Harris’s case there is, explained through his book ‘The Moral Landscapes.’ Though my rationale, having never read it and can only really go by its synopsis – is to claim that his notions are an example of Alasdair Macintyre’s ‘simulacra of morality.’
The book’s goal is to convince people that regardless of subjective morality [manifesting as objective] or morality as we know it in general terms, it is not enough and that we should be convinced that it is objective and that it’s a fact of nature. And this is exemplified by claiming that values have facts. And you find those values in science by measuring the levels of your well-being. So it’s like saying evolution (natural selection) is absolute because, in this construct, I feel good even though my sub/conscious has doubts. Or it’s like making reason absolute through rationalism. So, the book has many premises: morality and values depend on the conscious mind. This premise relies on linking consciousness with the brain, or rather, it’s in the brain, and the brain is natural. For this reason, there must be right or wrong answers to questions of morality and values that fall into the science category.
So when describing science, he’s referring to the simulated constructs of scientism; it’s essential to know the distinction [remember stealing of words]. Those with context and memory know consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon and can exist outside the body. Science viewed through simulated constructs means facts/values is false. Facts are only building blocks of rationality. For example, it was a fact that the earth was flat, then it wasn’t, and then it is again. And this is where it’s necessary to be divisive. History has shown society has been threatened by either/or because of the dark forces that reason can bring, Pure and instrumental. So, it’s easier to accept that they do not exist, and it is better to manage the essential irrationality of the pure and instrumental. Then, it’s less complicated to understand that reason is thought, and non-rational behaviour can be a good thing.
The premise for explaining morality through consciousness only as a product of the brain, which you can measure, is an incomplete assumption. It’s that old philosophical argument about reality – the debate on whether to deny that something may exist outside or external to our ideas, as opposed to the concept of reality you have of it. Reality exists only in your subjective experience or thinking of your-self as subjects over against objects; subjects are self-sufficient beings, and objects are things they dominate and control to objectify. Self-contained objects are a Descartes invention and were only completed through Kant by simultaneously accepting that they are both rational and irrational.
So what happens when what we believe to be objective facts is false? Like the Earth’s rotation around the Sun. That objective reason becomes a simulation. Let me explain … If the value has facts, this can be determined through objectivity and observance by questioning the stage: where is the curve? Why does the Horizon keep its level at 120,000 feet high? Why do clouds move behind the Sun and Moon when they’re supposed to be millions of kilometres away, and so forth? The supposed facts are incongruent with objective reason when observed than it’s a simulation. Therefore, the book’s whole thesis for moral value/landscape is impossible because whatever foundation you hold as an objective reason can be hijacked or false, which makes it non-objective.
Any notions that facts must be answered through the principle of moral values: ‘answer in principle, and answers in practice.’ It seems like a focus on methodology, technology, and managerialism, but those come afterthought and reason after it’s been through rigorous argument. Reason requires a relationship with other qualities to function. Irrationality shows itself in a taste for the absolute answers or truth, in self-referentialism or the belief that specialization implies privileged access to truth. And this quality can sum up rational atheism in a nutshell. What if reason does away with those other qualities? In my assumption, moral landscapes do – answers in principle and answers in practice would be irrelevant and irrational. Answers in principle and answers in practice are examples of expansions and can be found everywhere. For example, religious or ideological approach, purity plus application, abstraction plus action, and so on – It’s just about pure reason, instrumental or utilitarian.
Without argument or debate, irrationality wins by default because that’s how the collective is indoctrinated to think. Even if the argument for reason were equal in value on both sides, it would still be irrational because reason is a limited phenomenon in the first place. Let’s face it; this is Science’s version of ideology when reason is all-inclusive, pure, and instrumental.
They claim they’re waiting for proof that must convince them that God exists. By the logic of the moral landscape, unanswerable absolutes may not be answered, but it doesn’t mean they can’t exist. By its logic, it declares that God exists, but then the book spends 80% of its time invalidating God’s existence. It’s logical because it’s unbound enough to be agnostic and limited sufficient to be faithless. Those burdened by proof are those that match certain archetypes in films where the protagonist is only a hero when a moment of clarity comes over them. When a realization or a change of thought comes to them by external or internal means but would have gotten there faster if they were open to other people’s ideas, values, and experiences [there is a definite hidden narcissism quality in there somewhere] – and let’s say a (nu)atheist does have a change of thought or was struck by the light of grace, the individual’s result [for most] would still be mediocre because to view one’s filtering mechanism as pure reason is deeply for self-interest. And what was the point of needing proof once they have it and don’t deliver once the light has been struck? Those without intuition make for crappy prophets.
There is also an attempt to hide ethics through morality [objective reason] when it’s about using reason to protect us from the darkness. And any attempt to hold what we want reason to be becomes fantasy or fear of reality. There is an implication or a need to identify ethics as moral values as unrefutable pure reason, thereby directing them through the mechanisms of instrumental reason. Perhaps because ethics play a role in memory, imagination, and instinct, these other qualities maintain our overall ethical quality, and the fear of reality is the fear of ethics being unbound by rationality. There is merit for that since history has proven when good intention turns into ethically motivated injustice, violence, and murder. These are present whenever ethics are confused with morality. Ethical qualities are the weakest compared to other qualities – it’s where fundamentalist Christians and Islamic groups, as well as dictators and technocratic politicians, can slip into extremism because of the weakness of the ethical principle.
So why not anchor it in moral values and objective reasoning and attempt to make it absolute [the rationale scientism version of fundamentalism]? To do so would not mean accepting that ethics is about good intentions, which is not what ethics is, nor is it moralistic. Ethics is weak because it needs to be exercised daily. The idea that man and the world can be rational is to set nature up as an enemy. Francis Bacon once said: “the world is made for man, not man for the world,” and any attempts to squeeze reality or individualism inside reason will not work.
Resist the evidence; in Satellization continued [The Agenda Aspect]: To further claim my assumption that Moral Landscapes is an example of simulacra of morality. This is due to how much the thought experiment is driven by an Agenda – which has conspiracy written all over it. Sam Harris is one of the meme-notion of the fore-horseman and one out of many Nu-Scientist figureheads that Epstein bankrolled.
Epstein was arrested for sex crimes as well as other unsavoury acts. And he allegedly died of suicide in a jail cell, but not before letting slip that he had dirt on powerful people from politicians to celebrities. This made a lot of powerful people nervous and would entail a cleansing of sorts by executing pro-woke-public-relation groups to silence their cash cow industry proponents that inappropriately misbehaved. This effect on the entertainment industry would parallel the intellectual cleansing of universities regarding economics and social sciences, where it would fall victim to ideologies. The establishment of ideologues implanted decades ago has grown into something that’s unchallenged. Silencing would require an act of short-lived assassinations of guilt towards the proponents of the entertainment industry behind the scenes.
Graduates of these Universities become creative gatekeepers of sorts and instil an agenda, perhaps subconsciously, into their creative works. This suggests that imagination is conformed to strong, politically correct ideas coded in the entertainment industry’s creative outcome, ultimately resulting in bad reviews and box office results. The question here is the nature of ideology, not a particular outcome. Creators believe they’ve made a creative decision but are often coerced by higher management; their conformity balances the agenda aspect and their imaginative individual commitment. Therefore, where is the agenda coming from? Modern marginalization of the imagination can be found as early as Marsilio Ficino, partly responsible for the Platonist revival during the Renaissance.
Owen Lee describes the imagination not being lodged in the brain through the inverted argument of art as a solid continuum needing reinvention. We already know what there is to know about ourselves. Yet, we do not know how to express or realise it. This is a fundamental notion that managers of perception try to manage by claiming society has grown out of their fear of uncertainty. They do this by advocating a safeguard for people as they need more time to be ready for the truth. However, this is just the promotion of a conformist structured society that sees the imagination as the “sick brain.”
Realizing that these unquantifiable uncertainties can be used to manipulate is ironically an imaginative process in itself: the coronavirus simulation on reality and the Maoist/Stalin-socialist conspiracy plot to undermine the entertainment industry and universities [social sciences] both have a similar function. Both are viewed as coming from the radical left. The plot of intellectual cleansing will result in profits being lost, though, at the same time, billions are being made from specific private sectors due to the Virus simulation. Entertainment sectors are getting hit, yet they’re accountable to Chinese demographics; ideologies take a back seat to profit in this case. The point here is that institutional structures depend on each other. The Republic government is beholden to a technocratic corporation. The Liberal Government is beholden to the Republic government and technocratic corporations.
However, people will not see the apparent doubt in this conspiracy theory due to the memory of context not being exercised. They would rather believe in a conspiracy defined through a singular narrative [the Maoist/Stalin-socialist conspiracy] as opposed to any other context. This way of thinking is like catnip for right-wing fundamentalist Christian (conspiracy) groups. Now, in tangent republican reactionary anti-woke knuckleheads [I mean Youtube anti-woke personalities]. They come to realize the hypocrisy in celebrities when they’re inclined to be a mouthpiece for moral values. Celebrities are better off leaving the thinking to creative writers, and they should just as actors/actresses play [act] the part. Perhaps its damage control is due to anti-woke sentiments. At the same time, ant-woke influencers who remarks on them are also without context, especially if you have a one-dimensional look at socialism. And at times, they always seem to confuse Socialism with Fascism.
Socialism is about the government regulating private enterprises so they are less self-serving or profit-orienting and redistributing wealth. Countries like Denmark, Norway, Italy, France, and Germany are known as socialist countries; Germany is doing well economically for itself. [There are other aspects to socialism, but it’s a loaded subject and can’t be explained concisely] Concurrently, modern society has moved beyond Stalin’s socialist era. However, it doesn’t mean forgetting that it once existed [especially socialism’s tangent ideal ‘communism’] because, like classic racism, it will rear its ugly head if it were to be forgotten.
Combined with instrumental reason, the need to forget is an advantage for a society conformed to a structure that doesn’t need it, with instrumental reason being another form of utilitarianism. The imagination is regulated to something uncontrollable [a super-villain of sorts]; this is done by deconstructing or changing the perception or action of ethics, intuition, memory, and common sense. The perpetrators of this master plan [or agenda] are neither your left and right political polarities but rival elites in a war for ultimate power.
Sam Harris claims there must be correct and incorrect questions of morality and values that potentially fall in the per-view of science. We’ve already established that this is just an attempt to identify ethics as moral values as absolute pure reason through the mechanism of instrumental reason – to limit the imagination. For example, notions of well-being are utilitarianism concepts; ethical theories prescribe actions to maximize well-being (happiness) for the affected individual. He differentiates himself by grounding it in facts. And as we know [or it’s a fact that] facts are only building blocks of rationality. And it’s a fact that facts are not rational.
Even in the psychological arena, facts become interchangeable; for instance, self-harm was once a trait of borderline personality disorder but no longer, according to the DSM. Your well-being as a point of measure for facts can be fleeting. Moreover, they are imprisoned within a narcissistic structure which our society is structured upon. A simulation of choices, but ultimately a one-sided outlook with no balance [equilibrium]. Besides, reason may use facts, but it is not built upon them. Rationality is not based upon proof but upon thought and argument.
The public needs common sense, along with memory and context. So, regarding entertainment’s current predicament, people will not watch a terrible film. Regarding simulations, people are obligated to choose to either embrace a conformist structure or resist it. Where the creative act is most feared by conformist society, it often has the least need for imagination. And so we are hidden firm ourselves, and only art can reveal what we already know and perhaps what we don’t know. That’s why the art process, whatever form it takes, must live on and be minimally managed. The marginalization of art, whether in the denial of imagination or guilt, is used as a weapon – and it did so by cleansing the entertainment industry. This is probably a sleight of hand that takes the focus out of a conspiracy regarding the Epstein case. It’s a cleansing, but someone financed them, which means the conspiracy doesn’t end with Epstein.
While scientism is a relatively new term, the same idea and conspiracy can be traced back to the Renaissance. And this is where certain groups introduced a rational hyperreal notion of the cosmos, which became the new religion. In modern times, scientism is associated with Epstein, their financial beneficiary. Others among his payroll, from Dawkins to Sagan and others, were all promoting rational Atheism/Scientism/Science. Epstein was also friends with Bill Gates, who funds a lot of bio-engineering of Viruses/Vaccines. So there is this merging of Science and Scientism where pure reason is a sliding scale between the two. And this can be damaging because you never know the real facts.
Our imaginations are being marginalized, and we feel imprisoned within a narcissistic structure built upon a simulation, in the understanding that facts cannot hold absolute value. It may be in time that it can give you value. And this can be exemplified in the longest fact we have come to know, which states that the world is flat. Therefore, it must be the truest of all facts. Indeed, the most rational. There is no need to resist this fact; to do so would only be a circular debate between those who simulate the facts and those who can observe and give thought to reason. A never-ending circular argument between the trustworthiness of evidence that the more false facts are pushed, the more misleading it is.
Jacob Bronowski states that “no scientific theory is a collection of facts. It will not even do to call a theory true or false in the simple sense that every fact is either so or not. All science is the search for unity in the hidden likeness” You can use this statement in both arguments. So, the underlying discernment here is to put back the alchemical definition of science. In addition, do not deny what you observe and be open to your intuition.
Alasdair Macintyre’s notion of simulacra of morality comes from an ethical post-Marxist philosopher who also describes what Marxism is by the end of the millennium. It is not what Engels and Kautsky, Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao once preached. What remains of Eastern Marxism is merely conservative; what remains of Western Marxism is academic.
There is also a suggestion among other intellects that our current state, especially in the West [the United States in particular], increasingly resembles a Mussolini state. And this is a type of corporatism where your loyalty is to a group and is for self-interest. Mussolini also established the National Fascist Party. He also inspired other totalitarian dictators. He represents what corporatism is today; it’s just that there is this facade of democracy on the surface. At the same time, corporatism and self-interest led to totalitarianism behind the scenes – and much like the ancient Romans who kept the same facade of the Republic [the Senate, debates, and elections] but gradually separated from populism to false populism and then an empire.
And this makes the whole argument regarding a Maoist/Stalin-socialist conspiracy [that started in the universities that eventually manifested its way to the society in varied forms, namely the entertainment industry] less of a conspiracy and more about finger-pointing. It is a conspiracy with a two-way process that starts from the purely fictional; it’s all academic. Then, it becomes fiction as we observe those ideas in a format in which action is taken. And this argument, along with simulated Coronavirus, is the same concept but inversed. The metanarrative here is that it’s fascist-based, technocratic, and totalitarian, which is from the far-right.
Resist the evidence; in Satellization continued [Hyperreal Space vs. Waters Above]: Given the last dictum about democracy, it was more of a facade to hide and impede an imperial order – it’s also used to describe democracy as a simulation of sorts. A kind of simulation that is flexible at which the simulation stands at the top of three levels. And at the bottom is the citizens’ belief that they live in a democracy. While in the middle is this gigantic and growing corporate system. The simulation is flexible, which means the form can change. So, how do you evacuate the middle and assemble the form that remains while keeping the citizens’ belief in democracy true?
Jean-Paul Sartre once described democracy; “it was ridiculous to die for Danzig, but it would be reasonable to die for democracy – at least, that is what they keep telling us. I am not arguing about the principle: if one doesn’t give one’s life for ‘something’, one ends up giving it for nothing. But before I die for democracy, I’d like to be certain that I live in one.” There is uncertainty towards democracy, or at least there is reason to be sceptical about the genuineness of the idea. And that’s because it has morphed into something other than what people believe it to be.
This distinction coextends with the hyperreal space simulation, which is about recognizing that the Earth is flat and that space is just a simulation. The difference between the two is one of flexibility, and the other is a backdrop for your imagination. Perceiving both simulations is also about resistance to that—not necessarily resisting democracy or the imagination but seeing through the manipulation surrounding it, namely the structure, the background, or the stage.
We’ve discussed how morality can be simulated, especially when it lacks context, which was described definitively by Alasdair Macintyre. Another postmodernist philosopher, Baudrillard, describes scepticism in satellization. A passage titled Resist the Evidence in satellization, which by its title stands as a sort of anti-statism notion not only towards a hyperreal notion of space but any other notion of resistance concerning simulation. For example, the simulated morality of morals and values and the fear of uncertainty [which for the manager elite is known as a fear of the imagination] – which in many ways can be known as a satellization, and we should resist any notion of satellization; this is a significant parallel or link. Resisting the evidence in satellization holds an overall meaning to other resistance that can be applied. Baudrillard says:
| Resist the evidence: in satellization, he who is satellized is not who one might think. Through the orbital inscription of a spatial object, it is the planet earth that becomes a satellite, it is the terrestrial principle of reality that becomes eccentric, hyperreal, and insignificant. Through the orbital instantiation of a system of control like peaceful coexistence, all the terrestrial micro-systems are satellized and loose their autonomy. All energy, all events are absorbed by this eccentric gravitation, everything condenses and implodes toward the only micro-model of control (the orbital satellite), as conversely, in the other, biological, dimensions, everything converges and implodes on the molecular micro-model of genetic code. Between the two, in this forking of the nuclear and the genetic, in the simultaneous assumption of the two fundamental codes of deterrence, every principle of meaning is absorbed, every deployment of the real is impossible. (Baudrillard , J, n.d.) |
“He who is satellized is not who one might think” I assume this alludes to brainwashing mechanisms, and brainwashing mechanisms tend to have a conspiracy agenda behind them. And this makes the individual conform and not question the [ritual] initiations presented to them. ‘Through the orbital inscription of a spatial object’ is about introducing the hyperreal cosmos, where the advantages of time people would ascribe to this futile simulation program. ‘It is the planet Earth that becomes a satellite; it is the terrestrial principle of reality that becomes eccentric, hyperreal, and insignificant.’ This quote affirms a heliocentric world with its principle of satellization. But, it merely affirms that if the earth is seen as a satellite, your reality becomes hyperreal. In my analysis, this can be true if one believes in the hyperreal cosmos as the basis of our reality. However, once awakened from this simulation, satellization becomes finite, immovable, and internal to our reality instead of an external cosmos that’s infinitely large and moving. And what we know as space is more in tune with the (a)ether or the waters above. It can also be argued that is where thoughts and imagination reside.
“Through the orbital instantiation of a system of control like peaceful coexistence, all the terrestrial micro-systems are satellized and lose their autonomy.” I theorize that this quote implies that simulation as a control system acts as glue for peaceful coexistence. Still, the rule of this orbital example and the rule of the micro or the atomic universe are vastly different. And any attempt to make it similar or satellized will not work; the structure will inevitably dissolve. We know gravity is a hyperreal [theoretical] magic glue. Hypothetically, if one is to view our reality that sits on a flat disk that spins like the rule of the orbital earth, everything from matter to micro-systems will move towards the edge. By this logic, our heliocentric world will eventually reside at the top and bottom of the poles with every possible matter in it.
“All energy, all events are absorbed by this eccentric gravitation, everything condenses and implodes toward the only micro-model of control (the orbital satellite), as conversely, in the other biological dimensions, everything converges and implodes on the molecular micro-model of genetic code.” These arguments point towards quantum mechanics and the gravitational argument that relates to our reality. An argument setup based on impossibilities, and this is the argument of general relativity and quantum mechanics. And this is a clash of incompatible descriptions of reality. In general relativity, events are continuous and deterministic, meaning that every cause matches up to a specific, local effect. In quantum mechanics, realities exist in quantum leaps in direct opposition to linear reality and hyperreal space. The double-slit experiment introduced particles as waves that act in probabilities with a specific aspect of observance [and consciousness]. Relativity gives nonsensical answers when you try to scale it down to quantum size, eventually descending to infinite values in its description of gravity. Likewise, quantum mechanics is seriously troubled when you blow it up to cosmic dimensions.
We’ve established that hyperreal space is only simulated, so we can conclude that gravity, being its determining factor, is also simulated. So, throw the theory out the window. Forgot associating quantum mechanics with gravity in hopes of understanding black holes and Big Bang theories and their hyperreal notions anyway. Therefore, you can focus more on quantum mechanics [the nuclear] and the molecular micro-model of genetic code. At this point, gravity is excluded from its theoretical association, which is free to determine other factors.
Resist the evidence; in Satellization continued [Synch-X-Philosophy and the Post-modern Sleaze]: Today, to be sceptical or, more precisely, to question the pre-established structure means you’re a postmodernist – a purveyor of post-structuralism. However, those quick to label this reinvented tag onto anyone lack memory and context for that subject. So, it parallels how fundamentalists view occultism, which is always an incomplete summary. Perhaps their goal is to assume an authoritative figure for a pure reason. Because of this, it will close the mind and the imagination.
Post-structuralism [also known as deconstructionism] is not structuralism. Structuralism uncovers the structures that underlie everything humans do, think, perceive, and feel. At the same time, post-structuralism builds upon or rejects the ideas within structuralism. So, in many ways, you can view it as science, the absolute, and the uncertain. When Post-structuralism becomes controversial, it discards the idea of interpreting media (or the world) within pre-established, socially constructed structures.
And this can simultaneously be a problem and not a problem, a problem for those who fear uncertainty, those who like to play gatekeepers, and those still asleep. We know reality has all but disappeared [or consensus reality has all but disappeared]. So why go on with the charade? Perhaps it’s all about keeping levels of abstraction in an equal setting. The word ‘discard’ is final, primarily when associated with grand narratives and history. The words ‘discard’ to ‘rethink’ to be open-minded perhaps about the structure that you hold dear and to be true is nothing but a simulation that the dichotomies that the government, the media, and the religious and academic institutions give you can be wrong.
Philosophers Foucault and Derrida were more deconstructionists than postmodernists. Their teachings became prominent in the late ’80s and early ’90s when post-structuralism became part of literary theory in the universities. And this was seized upon by groups advocating equal rights who misused its context to unseat the elitist male from his ivory tower [which then morphed into ‘woke’ groups]. However, it seems more of a managerial movement to realign the university system in ways more to the liking of some larger foundations.
Derrida referred to deconstruction as a radicalization of a particular spirit of Marxism. Without context, this could mean anything. The statement itself has a certain ambiguity to it. I feel this statement is where particular intellects have conjured a specific narrative from right-wing fundamentalism – a radicalization of Marxism in a singular meaning as opposed to its spirit. And this is the same backward narrative [notion] or conspiracy theory that started to rear its head from Christian-fundamentalist-conspiracy-theory-groups who voiced those opinions in radio stations and internet podcasts – before it reached any university classrooms.
Deconstructionism and postmodernism are needed for flat-earth reasoning because deconstruction is an attempt to expose and undermine certain types of “metaphysics”, notably ones that are satellized by our simulated ‘metaphysical cosmology.’ I’ve suggested that satellization is more than mere movements of orbital objects; it acts as a symbol to impose or simulate fake evidence to be facts. And this means hyperreal space, the kind that NASA promotes, and the hyperreal space that science fiction promotes is the same. However, science fiction and the hyperreal cosmos are bound by the imagination and, therefore, are better at making certain truths. [Not the hyperreal cosmos itself, but other things] more indelible, as well as consistently updating newer conceptions or awareness that may arise in the collective.
Postmodernism [now satellized] is usually used as a label to designate large numbers of different thinkers, which means a focused critique is impossible. The misrepresentation of postmodernism and modernism is when you conflate postmodernism [with radical feminism or mistake it with post-colonial feminism when they are all about critiques of postmodernism and not postmodernism themselves]. Or to mislead memory and context by misquoting philosophers like Lyotard on his equation of power and reason – by labelling postmodernism as an activist strategy against the coalition of reason and power. It’s not that the coalition of power and reason must be fought against, but it is inevitable; it’s both inherent to knowledge and power. It is neither good nor bad, but both.
Postmodernism does not make sense when contrasted against modernism or even medieval pre-modernism. For example, any attempts to define pre-modernism through ethics ascollectivism, altruism and modernism asindividualismwill not work. Altruism is not an ethical theory, and neither is individualism. Postmodernism is defined by those who argue against it. Define postmodernism through forms of inverse (or reverse)-deconstructionism by claiming that it proposes outside the text and, therefore, its meaning is a form of subjective play. And this redefines postmodernism as something hyperreal, a sort of satellization. Derrida, the father of deconstructionism, opposed bringing text from the outside. He instead promoted an examination of the internal logic of the text. The pouring in of subjective associations is precisely what this prevents.
Postmodernism was first used as an art movement that embraced many different approaches to art; the most famous was pop art. Postmodernism did not have the flexibility of Surrealism, as it was a reaction against modernism. The Modernist artist focuses their style on form, technique, and processes rather than focusing on subjects, a reflective mirror of reality or realism. That also matches their philosophy about idealism, reason, and a utopian vision. Modernists championed clarity and simplicity, while postmodernism embraced complex, often contradictory layers of meaning. Postmodernism was born out of scepticism and suspicion of reason. It challenged traditional notions of reason and claimed universal certainties or truths. Postmodern art drew on the philosophy of the mind to the late twentieth century. It advocated that individual experiences and interpretations of our experience were more concrete than abstract principles.
Postmodernism (along with abstract art and cubism) was a pre-cursor art style to surrealism, and surrealism did not have the associated political or philosophical baggage of postmodernism because the rule of subjects did not bind it. Nor is it subjected to right-wing critiques because surrealism is about desolating subjects and abolishing objects. It doesn’t associate itself with politics but rather through dreams and psychoanalysis. Surrealism is the enterprise of nothingness through an excess of being. It creates savage and magnificent forms [images], an unknown being. A state in which reality dissolves into itself and nothingness hovers around it. And through the landmarks of self-destructive objects is where the spirit of surrealism resides without the restraint of imagination.
By abolishing objects, you, therefore, ‘blow up the outside world,’ a song title made famous by grunge singer Chris Cornell. And what is grunge, if not a postmodern style of music [one of a few musical revolutions to arise in two decades]? It recognizes the spirit of surrealism with its nervous tension as it pursues an unrealizable intuition. Though it must be synthesized to become objective, a mysterious subjectivity looms behind it. Or it can be made more evident in the awareness between the imaginary point of dreams and wakefulness. This style would be more pronounced in the space-dream style of Deftones, a unique nu-metal style. A band that started in the mid-’90s heavily influenced by grunge and metal but would later become more hard-edged but equally embraces an uber-indie ambience. Today’s youthful influences are living off the vestiges of a grunge era.
Grunge transfixed a moment in time and stapled a generation of X’s to an era unforgotten, but Grunge had to be influenced by something as well. So don’t look further than artist-prophet and watchtower guardian of intuition and water – the Sibyl herself Cocteau Twin’s Elisabeth Fraser. Their proto-gothic/dream pop 80s style of music, notably Heaven or Las Vegas, heavily influenced Nirvana’s sound. Fraser would use words phonetically by abandoning their literal meanings and converting them to syllables. For example, in the song ‘Ivo’, she writes: ‘peep-bo, peachblow; pandour, pompadour.’ Fraser’s voice acts as an instrument, adding textures with its heavenly quality. Together with their noisy punk rock style, they would imbue the folk spectre of a pop band cloaked in walls of reverb sounds complete with muscular baseline intertwined with other invoking sounds overlaid with Fraser sighing vocals.
They would later influence other music styles. One, in particular, came about by putting a drum box through fuzz pedals and guitar amps, where hip-hop would later adopt the same method. That technique would inspire the sound of mid-80s Synth-wave/pop. The most inspired musical styles they would influence would be dream-pop and shoegaze. From dream-pop bands like Sugarcubes [Bjork], Mazzy Star, Lush, the Sundays, and so on – to shoegaze bands like Jesus and Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive, etc. Lastly, they would inspire the mid-90s sound of Trip-Hop, the pre-cursor style of the uber-indie format. Fraser herself would be a guest vocal to Massive Attack’s ‘Teardrop.’ The song has an eerie synchronistic metanarrative regarding her consort, Jeff Buckley.
Trip-hop was also a defining sound for the 90s, much like grunge was for alternative rock. All thanks to generation tagged with X. Trip-hop band Sneaker Pimps put out an album called ‘Becoming X’ in which a particular song, ‘how do’ Kelli Ali, the singer, channels the Siren moans the Sybil spirit. Ali would later be let go from the group, which was a shame because songs like ‘How Do’ tap into the spirit of surrealism.
She also released a music video called post-modern sleaze, where the video’s narrative is about being on the run from southern conservative cops. And this seems to answer an ever-growing uneducated view on socialism and Marxism that somehow it’s a conspiracy plot. And this was promoted by Christian fundamentalist groups. And in that era, notions of equality and LGBT rights were marginalized. It was an era fresh from the Rodney King riots, a riot that had the hallmarks of genuineness as opposed to ritualized hoaxes. This was a time when there was an imbalance in societal perspectives where that favoured certain groups – especially those that had links to a secret clandestine organization whose punitive association was modelled out of fascist racism made anew in the far-right of southern United States. Fast forward to today, and the radical left is held up as a moustache-twirling villain in a republican mindset. It’s where politically correct ideals are being pushed – a speeding up of sorts, and for what purpose? Much of it is reactionary and needs to be forgotten, making it sound like it’s coming from that clandestine group [this is the meta-morphing of opposites mentioned in the last post].
Much of it lies in the spectrum of media; go to any small town, and these P.C. ideas still need to be made available. Of course, you can claim it’s a cult, but it’s just politically correct ideas being pushed without restraint. This is probably due to the ever-growing apocalypse and the ever-growing speed of the technical information age.
Uber-indie groups would emerge from trip-hop, from the likes of Charlie XCX – while Deftones singer Chino’s side project called Crosses [their logo depicts three crucifixes [or XXX] – an Orion constellation reference to the Three Kings]. At the same time, the group Chvrches logo has three horizontal dashes on top of each other, symbolizing Hiram Abiff, which is tied to the Cairo symbol of Christ. Artist Dot Alison’s album ‘We are Science’ has a track called ‘Hex’; another group is called ‘The xx’. And lastly, Trashique Grimes x Hana does a cover [dark comes] for the uber-indie group Canadian twins and songwriters Tegan and Sara from their album ‘The Con X: covers.’
From those lists, Grimes comes to mind, whose husband is Elon Musk, the CEO of the hyperreal-space institution SpaceX. There are attempts to keep the hyperreal space travel simulation going in hopes of reaching/ritualizing Planet X or other constellations, notably Sirius or Lyra. It’s all about rituals and worshipping altars. He also names his child ‘X Æ A-Xii’, a symbolic name signifying the number 12, which coextends to the revelation 12 cycles. This is another recycled myth [or be it slightly different] of the Demiurge and Sophia story with the creation of life in the heavens and earth. There are 12 significant constellations among the many heavenly stars that Demiurge [Dragon] creates. And in worshipping this ritual, their child is roleplaying the soon-to-be ruler of those 12 constellations. In ancient times, [elites] kings and generals took guidance from oracles or Sibyls.
This leads me back to part five of this thesis collection, where I mentioned that ‘X marks the spot for the Pearly Dewdrop’s Drops, which hinted at a location: the centre of the earth once known as Atlantis, and possibly at an earlier stage once known as Mount Olympus [Mount Meru]. The centre was topographically illustrated as a target and cross symbolizing the four seas or ‘X’. Four seas refer to four sections of the island separated by four rivers intersected by the middle centre.
The cross has many religious connotations. It’s also used in magic. Wiccans use each point of reference to coincide with the four elements that’s complemented to each sister.
This place or Dewdrop refers to a story in Homer’s Odyssey about the World Axis [the stories revolve around the Centre or the Navel]. I will discuss this in the next post. This association regards this overall thesis; if you strip away the satellization aspect, those stories make more sense.