In case you have not noticed, I have been in a bit of a funk lately. The big interdependent trifecta of censorship, state and corporatist-sponsored propaganda, and the role of “Davos Man” in the emerging new world order have been weighing heavy on my mind. Or maybe it’s just that I have been traveling too much, seen and heard too many things, and been the recipient of chronic targeted defamation for too long. Or perhaps I am just homesick for my quiet centered life with my wife Jill, our horses and fruit trees, and our modest Virginia farm/horticultural park. Or all the above.
What has really been eating away at my soul, like some kind of Dementor from JK Rowling’s darkest imaginings, is that we have allowed the billionaires to take over our world, and we have yet to come to terms with the consequences. The party of Davos, with its public facing mask behind the benign name of the World Economic Forum (WEF). What are the practical consequences for how both ourselves and our children will live their lives?
This issue touches the deepest questions. What is the fundamental nature of man, good or evil? What is justice, the proper order and character of political structures as they relate to justice, and what are the characteristics of a just and ethical man. The deep stuff which Plato covers in the foundation stone of western thought on politics, the Socratic dialog published as “The Republic”. Although pre-Christian (380BC), whether or not you have read the multi-volume work your ideas of right and wrong are profoundly influenced by this ancient text, and regardless of your personal opinion regarding the dialectic tension between Hobbes (“solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short”) and Rousseau, “The Republic” is the bedrock upon which “western” political thought is built. By way of contrast, the work of Kong 孔 (Confucius, 551–479 BC) is often seen as the foundation for much of Chinese/Asian culture, Zoroaster (Zarathustra, 628-551 BC) in historic Persia, and the blend of the teachings of Gautama Buddha (563–483 BC) and the Hindu classification of āstika and nāstika schools of philosophy in India.
Quoting from Robin Douglass, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at King’s College London. He is the author of Rousseau and Hobbes: Nature, Free Will, and the Passions (2015)
Rousseau thought that once human nature has been corrupted the chances for redemption are vanishingly slight. In his own day, he held out little hope for the most advanced commercial states in Europe and, although he never witnessed the onset of industrial capitalism, it’s safe to say that it would have only confirmed his worst fears about inequality. The sting in the tale of Rousseau’s analysis is that, even if Hobbes was wrong about human nature, modern society is Hobbesian to the core and there’s now no turning back.
This way of putting things adds a twist to the usual narrative, where Hobbes is supposed to be the pessimist, and Rousseau the optimist. If that’s true of their ideas of human nature, the opposite is so when it comes to their evaluation of modern politics. If you think that modern life is characterized by self-interest and competition, then one response is to sit back and wonder at how such individualistic creatures ever managed to form peaceful societies. But if you think that there’s a better side to human nature – that we’re naturally good – then you’re more likely to ask: where did it all go wrong? Hobbes saw societies divided by war and offered a road to peace. Rousseau saw societies divided by inequality and prophesized their downfall.
From my personal point of view, whether aware or not, we seem to find ourselves at yet another fundamental crossroad in human history. As I move back and forth in my daily life residing in this strange intersection of serving as one of the “leaders of the resistance” regarding current public health policies versus just trying to keep my farm financed and operating and my wife (and life) happy, I often hear various versions of the sad words “I really feel sorry for the young people, and what they are going to have to deal with. I certainly would not want to have to raise a child at this point.”. Rephrasing, this embodies a sense of impending failure of global and US society to meet expectations for what Plato correctly identified the highest priority for a human society – to provide for the biological survival and reproductive needs of its members.
We also find ourselves now inundated by opinions couched as legacy news media, controlled social media and official opinion from what are essentially Sophists, paid to serve the interests of the global oligarchy. Quoting from Peter Corning:
The Sophists were a group of itinerant teachers whose pupils included many of Athens’ wealthy aristocrats, who paid generously for being told what they wanted to hear. Among other things, the Sophists taught the idea that all laws are merely social conventions and that each individual has the right to define for himself (or herself) what is right and wrong. For instance, the Sophist Antiphon suggested that some laws may even require us to do what is “unnatural” – i.e., helping others. What is natural is to pursue your own self-interest. Sound familiar?
Later Sophists went even further, arguing that all laws arise from a voluntary contract that can be changed or even subverted if desired. Since inequality is a basic law of nature and we are inherently unequal, justice is whatever the strongest and most powerful are able to impose on others. Might makes right. Thus, the character Thrasymachus in the Republic claims that justice is nothing more than “the interest of the stronger.”
An outstanding example of Sophistry is provided by the recent outrage on the part of the Twitterati and legacy media darlings concerning the actions of Elon Musk and his comments/actions concerning Twitter and free speech (COI statement- I was unapologetically deplatformed by Twitter last winter for posting this truthbomb). Hamish McKenzie argues that the decentralized citizen journalism of Substack is one viable solution, while simultaneously promoting pro-censorship COVID official party line apologist Dr. Eric Topol. There have been many excellent video and written essays covering the rampant absurdities being promoted by various elite, corrupt, self-serving establishment apologists concerning the need for more censorship on Twitter and other social media platforms in order to protect free speech, but I really like the summary provided by Matt Welch in his essay “Gatekeepers Very Afraid That Elon Musk Will Remove the Gates From Twitter”. He leads with a quote from Max Boot, a Sophist who writes for the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post.
“I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter,” wrote Max Boot, columnist for The (Jeff Bezos–owned) Washington Post, on Twitter. “He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”
Boot is a longtime apocalyptic troll—past lowlights include declaring that “I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump,” and advocating the Federal Communications Commission go after Fox News to forestall “the plot against America.” But his anxiety about allegedly unfettered free speech is revealingly common in media, academia, Silicon Valley, and the government.
“For somebody with a lot of money to just come in and say, ‘Look, I’m going to buy a part of this company, and therefore my voice as to how your rules are adopted and enforced is going to have more power than anybody else’s’ — I think that’s regressive after years of [Twitter] trying to make sensible rules,” University of California, Irvine, law professor and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression David Kaye was quoted in Vox on Tuesday. “Twitter has stepped away from this idea of it being the free speech wing of the free speech party, and being a more realistic custodian of speech on the platform.”
Those “realistic” and “sensible” rules Twitter has adopted include banning thousands of political provocateurs (including then-President Donald Trump in 2021), suspending entire news organizations for publishing stories that turned out to be largely true, creating warning labels for COVID-19 “misinformation,” strengthening filters for allegedly threatening speech, and so on.
But is this really the dawning of a new age, or is it just another version of the ancient tensions between autocracy/totalitarianism, Plato’s benevolent dictatorship by wise and disinterested “philosopher-kings”, and the dwindling few who still believe in the American enlightenment principles embodied in the writings and thought of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison?
In his seminal “evolutionary politics” article – Synergy, Cybernetics and the Evolution of Politics – Peter Corning argues that what we are seeing is a predictable progression and adaptation to increasing levels of global political interdependence. But what I am seeing is something more fundamental, something which (in my mind) is truly evil. As outlined by Peter Goodman in his masterpiece “Davos Man”, in which he documents how members of the billionaire class have gained global control–chronicling have exploited the global pandemic to hasten a fifty-year trend of wealth centralization, what we are now experiencing is the latest consequences of an intentional, thirty-year campaign by the World Economic Forum to assimilate and dominate virtually all aspects of information, thought, political and economic life for the purpose of continued global hegemony by a financial elite. You will own nothing and be happy.
Ay, there’s the rub. Personally, like Greta Garbo, I just want to be left alone to live my life on my farm with my wife without interference by busybody psychopathic billionaires that have an insatiable need for more – money, power, control, dominance. But here we are. So, some political definitions are in hand so that we can share a common language unadulterated by the hired Sophist propagandists of the legacy media –
Technocracy: Let’s use the favored Sophist dictionary “Wikipedia” for this definition.
Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-maker or makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge. This system explicitly contrasts with representative democracy, the notion that elected representatives should be the primary decision-makers in government, though it does not necessarily imply eliminating elected representatives. Decision-makers are selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than political affiliations, parliamentary skills, or popularity.
Note the point- technocracy is not representative democracy.
Fascism: I will skip Wiki on this one, because it (incorrectly) identifies fascism as a far right movement, while in reality it originated from left wing political movements. Here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about Fascism–
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
Corporatism: Back to Wiki for a moment.
Corporatism developed during the 1850s in response to the rise of classical liberalism and Marxism, as it advocated cooperation between the classes instead of class conflict. Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism, and Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy advocated the collective management of the economy by state officials by integrating large interest groups under the state.
Whether or not a true quote, the following often attributed to Mussolini captures the essence of the relationship between Fascism and Corporatism: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
The term feudalism has a much more complicated and ambiguous history, and reflects a variety of distortions by political and economic thinkers from the 17th century forward – most notably Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. Details on this are again nicely covered by Britannica.
I suggest that Indentured Servitude gets closer to the WEF vision, but neglects to fully account for the profound consequences of the enormous and growing disparities in wealth between “Davos Man” and the rest of us. Investopedia has one of the best definitions of the term in my opinion:
Indentured servitude refers to a contract between two individuals, in which one person worked not for money but to repay an indenture, or loan, within a set time period. Indentured servitude was popular in the United States in the 1600s as individuals, mainly European immigrants, worked in exchange for the price of passage to America.
The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed after the Civil War, made indentured servitude illegal in the U.S. Today, it is banned in almost all countries.
And now we finally get to the core of what has really been bothering me. I have become convinced that the new world order envisioned by the uniparty of Davos is truly, fundamentally evil. Evil is as evil does. Allow me to illustrate with two examples that have really been bothering me.
During my recent travels, others have lead me to become increasingly aware of the true evil of child trafficking, and the enormous profits associated with that commercial activity. At first I heard of “Pizzagate”, and how that was just an example of the madness of crowds facilitated by the internet. Then we had the reveal of Jeffrey Epstein, the associated cover up, and the clear documentation of involvement with many leading members of the global elite. Like the Hunter Biden laptop, initially spun as a crazy conspiracy, the involvement of members of the global elite in Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking activities is now proven fact. This is essentially sexual slavery, or let’s call it by a softer euphemism – indentured servitude. Among many reasons, this really bothers me because it is evidence of emergence of an economic caste so powerful that they can and do use children to satisfy their selfish desires. As linked above, Wikipedia defines psychopathy as being “characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits”.
And looking forward, based on what I have heard, in this new world of indentured servitude to the “Davos Man” overlords, what the future apparently holds is a political-ethical framework in which it is considered ethical to literally “farm” humans by providing those who would otherwise be doomed to a life of poverty the benefits of a stable life in western society in exchange for periodic blood draws from which life-extending plasma and NK-cell products can be derived for the use by the wealthy. Sheeple is not just a slang pejorative. This business model is being actively discussed.
So wake up. We are being lead down a very dangerous road by hyper-wealthy who have neither respect nor empathy for you or I as individuals. This is the face of evil. And that is the Dementor that is sucking at my soul. If you are with the forces of good, please help me, please help humanity, and please help our children. Stand up. It is time to act. Or forever hold your peace.