32 Comments

Propaganda permits us two alternatives, getting whitewashed or wokewashed. In the past, when the White Man's Burden helped promote the modern colonization of the world under the heel of European empires (exported to Amerikkka with a vengeance), the invention of race, pseudoscientifc mythology crystallized in such ruling class enterprises like eugenics, served the ideological purposes of the "masters of mankind" (Adam Smith).

Once significant blows were delivered this history of population control over segregated human resources of labor, from chattel to wage slavery, as with worldwide post-WWII anti-colonial movements, including civil rights and liberation movements of people of criminalized color internally colonized in the US, it was necessary to revise this divide-and-conquer ideology. This led to early formation in the 60s and subsequent proliferation of identity politics, complementary to the increased economics of branding market identities in terms of lifestyles and cultural poses, all facilitated by advanced technological means of thought control from an ever more centralized media operating as a Ministry of Truth over subjects.

Subjects not only in the carceral but also experimental sense, as captive audiences have been relentlessly subjected to research and development of MK-Ultra-style programming. Now humans are being rewired beyond older, cruder methods of mind-altering chemical warfare like LSD and lobotomization, as biodigital controls are deployed to turn the brain and body into the battlefield of a prison planet, strategically designed to directly create our perceptions for us, beyond any past capability of techniques for perception management.

The current thing of being woke is the product of numerous converging forces: culture wars around wedge issues and binary oppositions of sectarian political correctness, on both sides of the left-right divide; postmodernist indoctrination of professionals and intelligentsia in race- and gender- reductionist crtique of microagressions uprooted from more broad-based and socially transformative class consciousness; corresponding reduction of popular politics to reflexive, reactionary protest activism, particularly characteristic of astroturfed organizations of a philanthropocially controlled nonprofit industrial complex; penetration of grassroots populism by agents of the surveillance and national security police state, further enabling psyops and pseudoevents more easily manufactured via concentrated fusion of media 24/7, making for such phenomena as falsh mobs and color revolutions....

Above all, wokeness is the product of the digital (c)age, not only digital natives (aka Gen Z) but anyone who falls prey to such addictive conditioning as that of 'smart' phones and ubiquiotus mobility of these data-mining devices of exploitation and oppression. Welcome to the woke cultural revolution, which not unlike Mao's cultural revolution represents the new morality of the future under the banner of Progress, while all the while ruthlessly re-educating people on behalf of destroying whatever remains of cultural autononomy, diversity, and creativity outside corporate state mandated morality.

Woke is in alignment with the pseudo-progessivism of technocracy, social engineering running on hot air of global warming and pandemics for marching the masses into biodigital final solutions in the name of 'equity' and 'sustainability'. As Hitler quipped, if you're going to lie, making sure it's a big lie. No wonder his heirs at Davos so enthusiastically promote this ideology of the new abnormal. Repeat after Big Brother: Science Is Real.

The more we're awake, the less likely we are to be wokewashed. This just as much relates to being whitewashed. The either-or side of this artificial division leaves both prey to the big lie of race, which has too long governed our perceptions to the benefit of ruling class interests and detriment of our common cause in confronting their global power,threatening at this point any future for the 'human race' in the transhuman, posthuman world planned for 'our kind'.

The more we wake up to the ways the few rule over the many, the more the many have a chance of rising up against the psychopathy of power which has long constrained us with its lies to act together as citizens of the world. That's why the people of South Africa are us, facing, or not, an agenda out do us all in. As never before in this endgame for humanity, an injury to one is an injury to all.

Expand full comment
Aug 5, 2022Liked by Ray Horvath, "The Source" :)

Lot of truth there Ray. According to the teachings of the woke... I (being a white male, over the age of 40, hailing from a working class background and holding 'certain' conservative views) am regarded as belonging to the lowest form of human species to have ever walked upon the earth! How can we even defend ourselves against this worldwide promotion of 'white guilt', when it's immediately deemed racist to do so? Once again... it's all part of a 'perfect plan'.

Expand full comment
author

The last one will be the first! :)

I don't care what they call me; if it's true, I learn from it, if it's not, it's only fumes, no fire.

Humans are pack animals and as such, are born racist:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/are-you-a-racist-am-i

If someone calls me a racist, I just ask,

"Fine. And then what?"

Expand full comment
Aug 5, 2022Liked by Ray Horvath, "The Source" :)

Like Mohammed Ali once said… “you don’t see geese flying with pigeons, or lions running with tigers”. To harbour certain racial views, does not necessarily mean harbouring hatred.

Expand full comment
author
Aug 5, 2022·edited Aug 6, 2022Author

Exactly. Race-mixing is bad most of the time, if not all the time. That doesn't come from hatred, only from cultural/biological/temperamental incompatibilities. There are communities with shared cultural/socio-economic backgrounds that work fine despite containing people from all races, but there are decisive differences between friendship and family.

Expand full comment

God died in Century 19. We dwell in Century 21. Antiquity is said to be stony eyed. Pre-Christian polities had different morality than ours in sexual behavior. Why be astonished we regress to the bestial norm? Does it take morality to program a computer or govern a state? Is morality needed in a Panopticon?

Expand full comment
author

Cultures are stabilized by their standards. Morals/ethics are part of the standards.

Some standards harm even those, who want to maintain them. In the West, there are multiple standards. That sort of thing always ended in one eliminating the rest. This time, the technocrats want obedient drones, so having no standards is supposed to be the winner. The problem with human nature is that without stimuli, structure, and recognition, personal integrity falls apart and the person will probably go insane. The atomization of human relationships and the constant separation of people takes away structure, while both stimuli and recognition are becoming as fake as a computer VR. Ultimately, the technocrats Paradise can function flawlessly by following a computer simulation, but there will be no humans left to perform their functions. That undermines the underlying principle that only those, who are useful will be allowed to stay in the system (aka. "survive").

In the meanwhile, most humans will probably devolve. Evolving would require a balance between the individual and the community, while none of the two seems to exist in the postmodern era, where only poor copies are allowed (the current quality of popular culture/music provide good examples).

Expand full comment

Well devolution is a constant. By what standard are we measuring morality and from which view? In one view Master Morality and in another Slave Morality.

Without an agreed upon standard each atom for itself following urges. If we look at "morality" among the Romans do we start with the rape of the Sabine women or the Republic or the Empire and then which one? Or over here do we start with Native Americans or the Christian morality replacing them?

Expand full comment
author

"We" don't measure morality; nature does.

Morality works, if it functions well to meaintain social stability, while generating personal satisfaction or, at least, indifference. "Divided we fall." That might be one of the reasons why all civilizations collapse. :)

Expand full comment

Then anything goes because everything works until it doesn't.

Totalitarianism works. One man Autocracy works. Sharia law works. No God, No Master works. Democracy and Republics work. All can be based entirely on irrational ideation for a few generations.

Expand full comment
author

Nil novi sub sole. :)

Expand full comment

This is not entirely the case as the phenomenal world breaks into this world. And as I said, not Nature but man fits morality to their needs. Aztecs and Incas, Hebrews and Babylonians, Technocrats and Muslims, and the curious crop called Christianity that refuses every teaching of their Master unless it comports with what each person finds useful. Man is a moralizing creature.

Expand full comment

If "reincarnation" keeps their adherents peacefully in apathy; Does "one lifers" philosophy keep their adherents in a frantic rat race before "time runs out"?

Life is a Game, We either Play It, or It Plays You. There are No Absolutes. I'm playing on Team Individual Liberty, ..... this time around :-)

Expand full comment
author
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022Author

Reincarnation in Buddhism allows for striving for perfection by leaving desire behind as you progress from "life to life," which essentially implies that your get dissolved in the Universal Entity in the end. Others might call this state death.

Apathy towards the self is already present in the Hindu variety, but that doesn't exclude walking your path towards whatever you consider a successful life. Your actions provide your karma, which will guide/force you in your next life towards the same end as the one Buddhists assign for themselves.

It is a liberating feeling for Buddhists and Hindu that they can screw up all the time, but in the end, they will find their way to "be devoid of suffering" or "reaching perfection," respectively, either way meaning the death of their selves.

Not having any desire for the Truth, for Goodness, and for Beauty, to me, means a dead soul.

Allowing myself to happen, because I place my trust in Providence that guides me through hardships and gives me room and means for improvement presents a more appealing option to me.

Each to their own.

Expand full comment

Exactly, that is my point, "Each to their Own". Ultimately it's Free Will, God Granted Free Will.....

at least that's what the Baptists named many of their churches. Glad We Agree.

Expand full comment
author

Me too! I just wish primary and secondary conditioning were not cutting so deep that it becomes nearly impossible to exercise one's free will...

Expand full comment

Great post. It is a fact that so many feel we have already been defeated by current circumstances and plenty of people name & dissect the problems we have as if that would make them disappear if we simply learned more facts. I understand the need to continue to wake up the numb and unfeeling Woke but not sure how much is possible there. The deceptions that you describe are crushing, real, and are serving as highly destructive forces. The fact anyone accepts this nonsense is reprehensible. Although we now have American Royalty in Queen Pelosi this simply reinforces the mockery we are living with as Americans. Time to reinstate the kind of Constitutional Republic intended by the founding ancestors. Returning to the Common Sense of Thomas Paine. I hear the voices of the American people asking for this. But as always we need good uncorrupted leadership.

Expand full comment
author

Forcing people to accept nonsense is part of the conditioning. Once mind-boggling stuff is accepted, the mind becomes useless. :)

My last stance about the "ideal" political setup was that perhaps the best form of government is a good king, protected and advised by the upper middle class. That, however, would eliminate nobility and nobility always evolves by default, under different names. All civilizations self-destruct eventually.

Expand full comment

It seems always down to the quality (decency, honesty, integrity)

of said humans. Btw, how do Amish "govern" themselves in this respect? Would old tribal system applicable to much larger

population? We know in principle how modern kingdoms function

in west-dem but what about the ones in less "developed world"?

Not really asking, just throwing it out there...

Expand full comment

This touched a nerve as I have been thinking about the privilege granted by "noble" birth quite a bit. The idea that someone can be 'royal' of course is preposterous. We are all born "noble" and that is the point of the Constitution.

At the same time we need leaders of strength, noble philosophies, and celebrants of diversity. This also is the point of the Constitution. Separation of powers, state's rights, and the fundamental rights granted us as individuals are crucial.

Historically all civilizations self-destruct and we are in the midst of a civilizational melt down. It is in understanding our history where we truly have an opportunity to avoid previous mistakes that we can triumpph.

But I believe we must use what we are given and not give up in the face of tragedy. Some people will always accept nonsense and this is part of being a diverse nation and world. The challenge comes in devising some way of overcoming the nonsense and avoiding making it the point. We have a system that can work, let's use it.

Expand full comment
author

Nobility, in my understanding, depends on the ideology it serves. If the ideology requires self-restraint, benevolence, and fairness, it can contribute to each generation of such "nobility," both for commoners and for the privileged. The privileged always carry more responsibility.

The problem with today's ideology (the "American Dream") that has been keeping Americans at bay for a long time is that the "nobility" has all the power and places the responsibility on the commoner. That is a recipe for self-destruction, because one side of the social contract is left out.

Expand full comment
Aug 4, 2022Liked by Ray Horvath, "The Source" :)

Yes, if we consider the government functionaries, billionaires, big technocrats and the WEF/Bilderberg to be the current "nobility" (they consider themselves such) then obviously it can't work except as tyranny. Doing of all human actions is contained in the intent behind it. including politics.

And obviously some people have a knack for leadership. You're right in the sense that "self-restraint, benevolence, and fairness" are the qualities to seek and support in the leaders we choose.

The "American Dream" from the Civil War on depended on commerce, increasing industrialization, and the willingness of the commoners to become cannon fodder for the war games of their oppressors.

Expand full comment
author

And it HAS been tyranny since the War of Northern Aggression...

Expand full comment

Yep, the Feds ride again.

Expand full comment

"Minor Attracted Persons," abbreviation: PEDO.

Only slightly lower than the "Blue Helmets" on the target scale.

Remember Lori Lightfoot said minors were doing ever more of the car-jackings in Chicago?

Remember what I said?

AIM LOWER

Expand full comment
author

In a normal relatinship, people take responsibility for themselves and for each other. By definition, only equal parties are eligible.

Just looking at Lightfoot's zombie face gives me the creeps. Looking at her would kill me faster than a Pfizer injection!

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

There is no "disdain" or "hate" on my end, and I don't care for the philosophy; it's the practice that counts. Based on that, I do not have much respect for Eastern "philosophies," but that doesn't mean I am resentful or hateful. Why would I hate something that I don't even care to value?

Even the WEF might pass for "good philosophy"!

"Disdain," "prejudice," "hate" (you also imply that I am "ignorant," but that's the human condition, so I don't have a problem with that, assuming you explain where you believe I'm wrong); these are only words and they don't accomplish anything good. What do you want to achieve by them? I didn't say anything personal and would like to keep it that way. It's only a discussion and if you feel that I am wrong somewhere, please substantiate your claim before placing me into not-very-nice categories... Of course, only if you are interested in discussion.

Of course, your psychoanalyzing me takes the cake! Please, avoid that in the future, if you care for any more responses for me.

Instead of praying, please, show some respect in the future.

Humility accepts and takes responsibility for one's strengths, too. Focusing on weaknesses is self-defeating and I consider it hypocritical, not humble...

And "we" are being created, not "were." Life is in the present tense.

I am finished with this "conversation," so please, do not respond.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 5, 2022Author

Glad to hear that you are unsubscribing.

I'll be even happier, if you stopped disrupting peaceful comments with ad-hominem attacks and strawman arguments! :)

Expand full comment

The best thing I read in that argument was “I’m unsubscribing from your newsletter”. What a relief 😅

Expand full comment
author

The most peculiar part of her "argument" was that she used the same strategy as PC enforcers have been using on the East Coast for 30-40 years:

"If you disagree with me, you are not open enough!"

Of course, her disagreeing with me entitles her to call me a bigot! Hilarious.

I always leave such arguments available for posterity and never ban anyone, because their behavior speaks for itself! :)

Expand full comment

It was a very strange outburst, full of something not

very palatable to me too. Couldn't not think where to look for the origins of it. Being an old simpleton I read

both pieces again and can only see it as one of those

irrational and emotional responses when you're are

totally upset with one but take it out on non-

involved party.

Expand full comment
author

"Socrates the Subversive is an elderly lady, who sometimes forgets about behaving in a ladylike manner." She is not alone. A lot of New Age followers follow esoteric practices and consider their knowledge superior. I had a similar fallout with Frances Leader, too, but that ended a bit better (she was also judgmental (quite crudely, if I may say so), instead of talking to the point, when I was trying to discuss history and she was making basic mistakes). Strangely, "the Word Herder," who is even vulgar; our interaction was quite a bit like this last one with "Socrates." They have in common that, with religious fervor, they adhere to something they cannot explain, cannot come up with an argument, and cannot think two moves ahead (they can only consider a single cause and a single effect at a time). While that attitude and intellectual level are extremely common, they don't seem to realize how much they limits their own thoughts... Their opponents end up with trying to explain things to them that they couldn't understand even if they wanted to, but they don't want to, anyway.

While I am nice a detached in my communication with them, I do not get anywhere and they waste a lot of my time. Not sure what's best for my readers, so I would like to hear back your opinion (the responsibility for my decision stays mine). After all, this substack belongs to my readers; I'm only running it.

Expand full comment