Directives to Commentariat: Answers to Comments and Questions

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Han Fei says:

    Wow I was featured for the first time in a youtube video! That means I am now well on the way of becoming an internet celebrity 🙂 Millions of bucks and worldwide fame here we come!

    I admit I am at quite at fault for not trimming my text properly. Although I take no shame in being exhaustive, there’s no need for my comments to be that long. However please do indulge me once more time because I think we’re onto something here.

    Of course by the unity of globalism I generally understand both a “higher” and “lower” sense. “The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite, after a long period of union, tends to divide.” The epoch of nationalism divided the world that was once more united by common cultural/metasophical paradigms than distinguished by the royal dynasties competing within them. It is natural that the opposite process can be expected to occur.

    However in the context of this discussion I mean specifically the garden variety “mainstream” globalism of institutions like the UN, IMF, WTO etc.

    Now here’s what the seasoned televised protagonist of our day has to say about it:

    “Never before has humankind possessed such power as it does now. The power over nature, space, communications, and its own existence. However, this power is diffuse: its elements are in the hands of states, corporations, public and religious associations, and even individual citizens. Clearly, harnessing all these elements in a single, effective and manageable architecture is not an easy task. It will take hard, painstaking work to achieve this. And Russia, I will note, is willing to take part in it together with any partners who are interested.

    Colleagues, how do we see the future of the international order and the global governance system? For example, in 2045, when the UN will mark its centennial anniversary? Its creation has become a symbol of the fact that humanity, in spite of everything, is capable of developing common rules of conduct and following them. Whenever these rules were not followed, it inevitably resulted in crises and other negative consequences.” -VVP, at the Valdai Club meeting, Oct 24, 2017

    Now sweet talking aside, (and Mr. P you don’t even need to do that to go after my heart, just some flowers would do thank you) there’s a bit of a slip of the tongue here, just a little freudian slip. “Single effective and manageable architecture”. Delivered in an address directly to leaders of international institutions and representatives of foreign states. Doesn’t that sound familiar? In fact isn’t this is exactly the position fomenting in the public consciousness a graduated acceptance of a supranational mega-bureaucratic governing structure as something that is to be normal, expected even? He also says humankind has power over this and that. Oh but which humankind we are talking about here? Putin and his friends are humans as far as we know, and so was everyone else sitting in that conference. I hope I won’t need to demonstrate any further lack of discrepancy in the goals and interests of that particular segment of humankind Putin perhaps sartorially refers to here, such as would warrant making any sort of distinctions between them.

    Branco you don’t really read Russian language press and media outlets, do you? Well I do. I won’t go into exposing it at length, but from my knowledge of the Russian right partial to the whole traditional principle of the Russian Empire (they call it Eurasia now, but who cares) almost unequivocally prefer the dismissal of Putin and his entourage, followed by the return of the Tsar, a gold backed ruble, and a nationalized central bank. This is all very cute, but I don’t see anything particularly special about it. It’s just plain old chest thumping of a nationalist segment of a country that happens to have the land area of a major transneptunian object. If Croatia was that large, I’m sure the nationalists in your area would sound like a big deal as well. Suffice to say that this triune of demands are essentially anathema to everything P stands, lives, breathes and practices Judo daily for. The influence this type of thinking on the official administrative policy is just that, coincidental.

    Now, China. Point 9 and 13 of Comrade Xi’s Thoughts on Socialism in the new era:

    “-Coexist well with nature with “energy conservation and environmental protection” policies and “contribute to global ecological safety”.
    “-Establish a common destiny between Chinese people and other people around the world with a “peaceful international environment.”

    Again it’s not hard to see from where this language stems.

    The Dugong however, is altogether a wholly different story. I think he gave up on trying to influence his country’s administration. The latter offers little of what he needs anyway. Even Dugin understands perfectly well that Russia is too weak, both socially and economically, to serve as a vessel for his geopolitical dreams.

    He seems to be terribly interested in the North American new right however. I find it hilariously telling how alt-right “publications” all of a sudden shower Putin with praise for allegedly redpilling the masses in a recent interview, even though in context of his politically incorrect phrase the exact opposite meaning was intended. This goes to show that even the fringe movements that allegedly go against the times, unfortunately draw roots in the exact same astroturfed soil planted for them. The question is, who will reap the ensuing harvest?

  2. Karloff says:

    Thank you for your reply Branko, particularly the first more spontaneous version which is now lost to history.

    With respect to technological manipulation of biological organisms, I was not only referring to genetic modification, but also radiation, particularly electromagnetic radiation, chemical contaminants in food and water, particularly hormones, the over administration of antibiotics, the implantation within the human body of inorganic material, to name but a few.

    Irrespective of the role of intention in these matters, which is usually the sticking point in bridging the gap from the academic mindset to that of the conspiracy theorist, is there not a power in the ability to model and predict their cumulative effect?

    Such an undertaking requires tremendous financial, computational and intellectual resources to perform, but are the results of this analysis and the decisions taken based upon it transparently presented to the population?

    No they are not, as they have strategic value in the competition between the various power factions in the world, namely nations and corporations. Instead they are generating a global technocratic hierarchy.

    What are the checks and balances on the power of this technocratic hierarchy? Who has oversight of the decisions they take? What reason is there to believe they will resist a natural tendency toward corruption?

    Is this a conspiracy theory?

    • Malić says:

      That original piece was technically so dreadful because of the mic failure that I had to hand it over to the dustbin of history.

      I had a feeling you mean an overall technologizing of human life but I took an example of GMOs because I think it to a certain extent sums up all other instances of engineering what should not be engineered. My view on politics of this – indeed: global – change in the people’s consciousness is, however, not straightforwardly conspiratorial. I don’t really believe that clear cut dichotomy between “elites” and “masses” is very useful for various reasons, major one being that conspiratorial view declares the supposed elites who push this as “absolutely evil”. I think that evil is more democratically distributed throughout the social strata and that world indeed is not globalized, nor do I believe that it will become such in the end. People in the developed West tend to see the evil only in their own backyard because they think the whole world is their backyard. Yet this is not true. And this mindset, even when led by the best intention, ends up in chauvinism of the worst kind as displayed by a bulk of what we call alt media, something I talked a lot about lately and will continue in the future.

      Now, the very idea of global system – which is what technocratic system in essence is – cannot suffer checks and balances, save in the technical sense of what benefits the system more. In this sense, there definitely is a conscious push to globalize world in this sense and, unfortunately, UN and other supra-national institutions are infected by it to a highest degree. It is not really conspiratorial because it is more or less public, if we are to judge by the documents such as “Predicament of Mankind”. I consider this to be hardly debatable. However, the question is: how powerful this policy is? I would say that, as a conscious policy, it is far from all powerful. The more extreme instances, as posthumanism, seem to me more like a symptom than a policy and, in my view, this makes them even more ominous, because if people become so deprived as to believe in merging with the machines than distinction between the elite and the populace becomes irrelevant: everybody wants the same thing.

      Now, considering “conspiracy theory” in general: being blessed to live in the part of the world where you always had a feeling that neighborhood can blow up any minute because of policies and ideologies that existed when CIA’s Langley was still a place where you could shoot an occasional buffalo, I can see most of them fall apart when their proponents try to explain my region. Moreover, people who focus on elites vs. populace ideology where everything is reduced to hidden hand of evil and powerful human beings tend to end up being evil and powerless human beings themselves, almost without exception. The reason is an extreme reductionism they perform – something very akin to mental GMO production – where they reduce profoundness of history into a 2D planar surface where they connect the dots. For my money this is a perfect image of someone trying to globalize the world on technocratic principle: sitting behind the screen and connecting the dots to produce the desired image. So this, a priori, notion of conspiracy I reject utterly not only because it is false, but also because it leads to mental and moral corruption.

      To conclude, I don’t believe that evil is a human invention and I don’t think that human power is such that it can bring it about by itself. This doesn’t exclude conspiracies, but puts the idea of global conspiracy into question. As I pointed out in the video, there is not only one globalization idea – after all it’s been around at the latest from the 19th century in various forms: from Mazzini to Marx, Napoleon to Freemasons – and I think the situation is still like this. It is hard to deny that technocratic principle is the most powerful one, not the least because it won hearts and minds of the masses, but there are others and they can merge with each other.

      It is an open subject. As you see, I hardly have a lot of answers and I’m not so arrogant as to deem myself definitely sure about much of what I say, so perhaps in the future I’ll change my mind on some of these things. This site is an open ended project and in the future perhaps we’ll revisit some of the questions you pose with more depth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *