What kind of creatures will stop at nothing?

Read Time:13 Minutes

Something has been troubling me since the beginning of what seems to be becoming a protracted crisis of sorts. Recall that etymologically, the word crisis marks that ‘turning point’ in the development of a disease or illness when the patient can either recover or deteriorate to the point of dying. That is the point where we are at present regarding the relentless attempt by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its acolytes, to subjugate the people of the world to a totalitarian surveillance state.

The disquieting thought is this: what kind of beings – I hesitate to use the term ‘people’ for them – are capable of forging ahead with plans and actions that have severely deleterious effects on the lives of human beings at every conceivable level? Their actions have devastated thousands of people psychologically, educationally and physically, as well as in economic, financial, social and political terms. These effects therefore manifest themselves as suffering of multifarious kinds, and – judging by recent reports – death on a scale seldom, if ever, seen before.

The question concerning the kind of creatures capable of perpetrating incomprehensible crimes against humanity may seem baffling to many. After all, they might say, the crisis was planned and is being fomented by other people. Aye, there’s the rub, I would retort. For from a philosophical perspective – and that means from a position of thinking against the conventional grain – one has to question, and problematise, their supposed humanity. To ‘problematise’ something like an action or practice means to inquire about its conditions of possibility and impossibility: what makes it possible, and where do its limits lie? Hence, what makes this phenomenon of monstrous disregard for the lives of other human beings possible? One could add contempt for other living creatures; think of the millions of chickens, cattle and wildlife that have died as ‘collateral damage’ since the beginning of Covid, mainly as part of the wilful destruction of food resources.

One may problematise the ‘humanity’ of the oligarch technocrats this way. Those familiar with the history of philosophy would recall 17th century thinker, René Descartes’ hypothesis of the malin genie (evil genius) in his Meditations. He postulated this ‘evil genius’ as a vindication of his argument, that one is justified in doubting everything one has been taught. The malin genie, Descartes suggests, can be imagined as a supremely powerful being that causes human beings to believe all they do is real – that they are alive, have families, eat, drink, make merry and sometimes suffer. But, the French philosopher avers, unbeknown to us gullible humans, this unscrupulous being has created us in such a way that what seems to be the case is actually not the case. This is somewhat like blue-pilled Neo in the first Matrix movie, lying in his pod, believing that he lives a professional life in a ‘real’ world, and so on, while in fact this is a mere simulation. Until he gets red-pilled by Morpheus, and wakes up to the reality of having been systematically deceived by the ruling power. Does this sound familiar?

The point is this: for such a malin genie to deceive human beings in such a thoroughgoing manner, it would have to be a powerful, diabolical, amoral being, with no capacity for remorse or guilt, like those who control the eponymous matrix in the film referred to. Here we have the first approximation of the kind of creatures we are dealing with today: the Cartesian imaginary enables one to picture them as a collective ‘evil genius’, sans conscience, scruples or remorse, constantly engaged in deceiving us in every conceivable way. While most people would probably find this a disturbing, even repulsive image, I’m willing to bet that, if any of the members of this collective malin genie were to read this, they would feel flattered. This kind of creature wallows in its own evil nature.

A second, corroborating idea is articulated by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century, in his work, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Here he distinguishes between two kinds of evil – that which he calls ‘radical evil’, on the one hand, and ‘diabolical evil’, on the other. As the word indicates, ‘radical’ evil is rooted (Latin radix: root) in the human heart, as it were, according to Kant, which means one can never eradicate (uproot) it once and for all. Every human being remains capable of doing evil deeds, but also of refraining from doing so, throughout their lives.

‘Diabolical evil’, on the other hand, marks the kind of evil that so thoroughly pervades a being that he, she or it is incapable of refraining from performing evil deeds. Their mere acting coincides with evil. Needless to stress, if one had reason to believe that all human beings were ‘diabolically evil’, it would make no sense to talk or write about ethics or morality. This is because the latter two concepts presuppose the ability of choosing between good and evil, although it is not guaranteed that one would choose good.

The Kantian imaginary therefore provides the second aperture for imagining the collective globalist malin genie driving the current, unholy quest for absolute power over everything on planet Earth. It is the embodiment of diabolical evil, with no capacity for mending its ways. i

I have a nasty suspicion that the oligarchs’ obsession with technology has something to do with this. After all, if one believes (misguidedly) that one possesses the technological means to achieve virtually anything one wishes to, such hubris would erase the need for guilt or remorse. It would also render one’s self-image one of putative omnipotence. To be sure, this does not necessarily mean that the vaunted omnipotence should be used against other humans and living beings; it could conceivably be enlisted for good. Except…it is but a small step from what is experienced as technological omnipotence to all-encompassing evil. ‘It is technologically possible’ becomes its own imperative unless it is recognised that everything that is technically feasible is not, for that reason, ethically viable or justifiable.

Put differently, the very being of a once morally capable creature is constitutively altered when, at the epistemic (knowledge-related) and ontological (being-related) levels, a technological twist occurs which is no longer reflective and reflexive. In the latter case, it would facilitate turning one’s attention back to oneself in a critical mode. Instead, it becomes ontogenetic (reality-creating) regarding the emergence of a new kind of being. Such a being is no longer bound by any moral or ethical principles, but has surpassed these in a manner that goes beyond even psychopathy and sociopathy (which do not evince an active conscience). It represents the pure absence of moral sentience.

To switch registers from the philosophical to the informational – of one thing those among us who are wide awake regarding the sustained onslaught against humanity can be certain. The amoral sub-humans who planned and are driving it with the help of the mainstream media and thousands of compromised individuals – including journalists, medical personnel and members of the judiciary – will stop at nothing to reach their goal of total domination. To confirm this, the indomitable investigative British newspaper, The Exposé, reports that an attempt has been made “to fatally injure our Editor to silence us once and for all”. This is not surprising, given the newspaper’s consistent, courageous reporting on various aspects of the so-called ‘great reset’ (which includes what they intend to be a ‘great cull’ of supposedly ‘useless eaters’).

For example, an article titled “The unholy trinity: Soros, Schwab, and Bill Gates – The architects of our dystopian past, present and future”, exposes the dubious activities of these three key figures in the ranks of the oligarchic globalists. Undoubtedly this would provoke the ire of the latter.

It is impossible to ascertain the number of individuals who have been injured or assassinated by the globalists’ (mostly bribed) proxies. Among those who suffered the latter fate was President Magufuli of Tanzania, whose murder was probably provoked by his refusal to cooperate regarding the (largely successful) attempt to impose Covid-19 restrictions on countries across the globe. Despite his assassination, however, Tanzanians refused to be subordinated by his World Economic Forum-selected successor, in this manner setting a non-conformist example to the rest of the world.

Another instance of the ruthlessness of the technocratic neo-fascists – so-called because of their expressed desire to fuse government and corporate power – concerns Kevin Annett. This brave Canadian tirelessly pursued the globalists on a charge of genocide through the International Common Law Court of Justice, and was unsuccessfully targeted – together with his family – for termination by them (Murder by Decree).

When confronted by the nature of the specific charges against the individuals concerned (in the document linked above), it becomes clear why it would have been in the interest of the latter if the person driving their prosecution were to be permanently removed. In the video posted by Annett, he summarises the case against the group of people held accountable for genocide by the International Common Law Court of Justice, and in the article relating to this (Murder by Decree, referred to above) he writes:

The International Court that forced Pope Benedict from office in 2013 has struck a blow against the COVID corporatocracy by convicting top officials of Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, China, and the Vatican of Crimes against Humanity.

The Court’s verdict sentences seventy-five individuals to life imprisonment, seizes their assets and disestablishes their corporations, and lawfully prohibits the further manufacture, sale, or use of their COVID vaccines as ‘products of medical genocide and mass murder’.

After a four-month trial convened under International Law, the judges of the International Common Law Court of Justice (ICLCJ) issued their historic verdict and sentence today, along with Arrest and Expropriation Warrants against the defendants.

The convicted individuals include Albert Bourla and Emma Walmsley, the CEO’s of Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, Xi Jinping, President of China, ‘Pope’ Francis (Jorge Bergoglio), ‘Queen’ Elizabeth (Windsor), and Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada.

Unfortunately the legitimacy of the ICLCJ is not everywhere accepted, which has enabled mainstream media to sweep these far-reaching court findings under the rug. Nevertheless, considering the fact that it took the court four months to reach its verdict, one can conclude that it was a serious and thorough process.

The evidence that the oligarchy is relentless in its unconscionable attempt to crush or remove all resistance is overwhelming – so much so that it would probably take a book-length study to document all of it. Evidence uncovered by Robert F. Kennedy in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci (2021) regarding the unscrupulous suppression, by Fauci and Bill Gates, of the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin against Covid-19, is by now well-known to many. Moreover, Kennedy’s documentation of the number of people who had died by the time of its publication, after being injected with the Covid ‘vaccines’, is irrefutably documented.

Yet, astonishingly, a vast number of Americans, together with other people around the world, still refuse to believe that a real conspiracy (probably the most encompassing in history) lurks behind these disturbing findings. In South Africa, where I live, I recently conducted several talks to groups of academics and members of the public, informing them of the (to my mind irrefutable) evidence of the kind that Kennedy has documented. Yet, I was met by mostly scepticism and denial on their part in response. This was a clear indication of what Freud correctly identified as a manifestation of the unconscious mechanism of repression, which relegates to the unconscious all unbearable, anxiety-provoking experiential materials.

Among other instances testifying to the merciless pursuit of the oligarchs’ global domination agenda, one encounters interference in judicial processes. Among these there is a whistleblower’s report of being suddenly removed, together with their team, from an investigation into the activities of Hunter Biden, President’s Biden’s son.

Then there is the revelation in the recently released Durham report on the 2016 presidential election, that the FBI had not conducted a thorough investigation on reports of Donald Trump’s involvement with Russian officials, and furthermore that the person tasked with opening the investigation had shown a hostile attitude towards Trump at the outset.

Witness, too, the systematic engineering of smaller banks collapsing in the United States and being absorbed into big banks, as a precursor to the rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies. In this the globalists are attempting to ensure that people cannot keep their money in smaller banks as a defence against obligatory digitalisation.

Recall the ongoing attempt to grant the World Health Organization sovereignty over all United Nations member countries through the so-called ‘pandemic treaty’, implying that the WHO would have authority over countries’ citizens in the event of another ‘pandemic’. This would include the ability to enforce lockdowns and mandatory ‘vaccinations’. Its power would be pretty much uncontestable, regardless of the fact that the WHO comprises unelected officials.

In addition to these examples of the relentless and destructive activities on the part of the agents of the New World Order – as these oligarchs like to think of themselves – many others could be enumerated. But the one that I believe should raise great – perhaps the greatest – concern at present, is what appears to be the imminent threat of another ‘pandemic’, that of avian influenza or ‘bird flu’, which has been diagnosed in two humans in the United Kingdom.

Why should this be cause for concern? Recall that, some time ago, Dr Robert Redfield, former director of the CDC, warned that the ‘real’ pandemic would be bird flu, given the probable mortality rate associated with it, which would be much higher than that of Covid-19 (see here and here). Needless to stress, one has to be prepared for this; it may be that it is merely a ruse to exterminate even more chickens than have already been culled, but it may turn out to be another ‘pandemic’. As for myself, I shall certainly not take a ‘vaccine’ – which has already been manufactured, ‘just in case’ – as Natali Morris laconically puts it in the Redacted video, above – something that rings alarm bells loud and clear. There are other safe, tried and tested remedies for this, should it happen.

Hence, back to the title of this piece: What kind of creatures will stop at nothing? The philosophical part of this article is an attempt to understand the evident amorality or ‘diabolical evil’ of the creatures responsible for what is happening around us as I write. Only some instances of this have been listed in the informational part, above. But if ‘they’ will not stop, and it’s up to us, how do we stop them?

Here we can borrow from Martin Heidegger who, in his famous interview in Der Spiegel said – alluding to technology – that ‘only a god can save us’. I am sure that many of those among us who regard every new development of the present nightmare with horror would agree with Heidegger. In fact, someone who wrote to me in response to my recent Brownstone piece on extinction, said exactly that. But Heidegger also previously noted that ‘one should not seek a technological solution to technology’. This is valuable advice; if one attempts to fight the globalist technocrats with technology one would probably find that you are outgunned.

We must fight them in another way – shift the terrain to that of ideas and discussion, as Real Left and Brownstone have done, and to ethics and morality, which are among the most important issues to discuss. By all means think of ways to resort to physical defence of one’s loved ones, should that become necessary. But while one can spread the ideas and insights that have emerged on Brownstone and similar research and discussion forums, one should not underestimate their intellectual and spiritual power. Through this power one can influence and persuade readers that humanity has a duty to successive generations, to rid them of the blight that currently bedevils our lives.

i Years ago I published a paper titled ‘The logic of noir and the question of radical evil’ in the American journal, Film and Philosophy [Vol. 8, January 2004, pp. 122-137], where I offered an interpretation of two types of film noir along the axes of the Kantian distinction between radical and diabolical evil.

14 thoughts on “What kind of creatures will stop at nothing?

  1. Accusations levelled against Queen Elizabeth aid and abet a divide-and-rule scenario while ignoring the institutional roots of a real problem. Matthew Ehret displays this blindness, willful or otherwise, in his account of the 1975 overthrow of the Whitlam Labor government in Australia (on pages 307-401 of his book “The Anglo-Venetian Roots of the Deep State”). Matthew misinterprets the implications of Australian historian Jenny Hocking’s ultimately successful court battle to gain access to the letters exchanged between Queen Elizabeth II (through her secretary) and the then governor-general Sir John (not Sir Philip) Kerr on the subject of Whitlam’s dismissal. In Matthew’s account these letters “contain information which will undoubtedly shed light upon the active role of the Queen herself in carrying out an act which essentially amounted to a modern coup d’etat. […] Kerr not only made history by sacking the elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam but also revealed the scope and nature of the British Monarchy’s very real powers in our modern age.” In fact it appears that these letters reveal that Queen Elizabeth was not informed in advance of Kerr’s intention to dismiss Whitlam. The monarchy’s resistance to publication of the correspondence must have been motivated by the desire to conceal its own impotence and inability to influence anything in the situation during this conflict between the CIA, the Australian Senate, Australian right-wing parliamentary politicians in both parliamentary houses and the Whitlam government. Is this royal dishonesty forgiveable? Given that sovereignty is vested in ……the monarchy, to whom or what could the monarchy appeal if it sought to make an issue of not being consulted? To appeal directly to “the people” would be an infringement of the deontology of constitutional monarchy. This is a Catch-22 situation and is a weakness of constitutional monarchy that is not rectifiable by abolishing the monarchy in favour of a republic as Matthew would desire.

    1. Thanks for that interesting bit of history involving the monarchy, Wayne. As far as I can see, it does not bear directly on my piece, except to suggest that – given what you reveal about the queen’s dishonesty – the International Common Law Court of Justice probably had good reason, after a four-month trial, to include her among those found guilty of the charges.

      1. Bert, the queen evidently did not did want there to be public knowledge of her powerlessness and irrelevance. The queen’s republican detractors did not want their ideology of her antidemocratic interference in the political process to be contradicted. Neither side was interested acknowledging reality. Both sides wanted the public to believe something they judged to be to their own specific political benefit. Why not examine the real institutional issue rather than flattering either of these two sides?
        I have examined this problem in the past, with specific reference to the common law discussion and indeed to Kevin Annett.

  2. A lucid, relevant piece but for the conclusion:
    “We must fight them in another way – shift the terrain to that of ideas and discussion… and to ethics and morality…
    Through this power one can influence and persuade readers that humanity has a duty to successive generations, to rid them of the blight that currently bedevils our lives.”

    Heavens above! Aren’t these thoroughly romantic, unrealistic solutions? For the past 3 years, many of the world’s best, most genuine scientists and others have been heroically struggling to enlighten and influence humanity with zero effect on the megalomaniacs – “the amoral sub-humans” – who are bedevilling our lives. It’s true that more are now awake than earlier but if anything this seems to have encouraged them further.

    What could one hope for instead? Leadership is the first thing that comes to mind – strong, fully cognisant, localised leadership such as seems to be emerging in Africa. This won’t be enough but it has more potential than discussions on ethics and morality.

    1. Jay, you are right about leadership, and I would go even further and repeat what a priest – whose name I forget – urges us to do in two widely circulated videos, namely, that we should start arresting the predators (citizens’ arrests), because if we don’t, we’re going to die. I’m all for that, because these monsters have no conscience, and would see us all dead without batting an eye. Having said that, though, I don’t think you should underestimate the power of discussion, as long as relevant ideas and concepts, including those pertaining to morality, are brought to bear on the matter at hand, in an elucidating, motivating manner. Recently I attended a conference in Mytilini, Lesvos, where I spoke about the lethal nanoscale AI found in the mRNA ‘vaccines’ (in the context of the limits of AI), and argued that AI’s limits reveal themselves at the point where you realise that you cannot hold the AI responsible for its lethal effects on people; those technoscientists who designed them are the ones who should be held accountable. The point is this: although this was only a discussion, some of the people in the audience (young people, mainly), became quite animated with anger in the face of what they had learned, and had not known before. These are people who will not be fooled again, assuming they were before. Ideas invoked in a relevant context have the power to move people to action.

  3. A survivor of childhood abuse, I’ve understood since the ’70s that psychopathy is genetic, untreatable and incurable. I am certain that the clones and sequences of the genes in question have been languishing in the CIA, Russian Security Ministry and other intelligence agencies for years if not decades. In the Teens, upon learning of kurgan theory, I’ve argued that the descendants of the cavalries are still in power and have a distinctive psychopathic mutation.

    IMHO, only building Terminator II and enabling it to rewrite the code of other AI can defeat the Indo-European empire without nuclear Holocaust. I predicted years ago that it’d be an artificial Andrea Dworkin because of its inherent asexual nature. Frankly, that’s not my problem. I’d just kick back, eat buttered popcorn and laugh at the male tears.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.