Opinion - It Is The Hour Of The Time

Biden invokes the Lightbringer to conquer the soul.

Sep 04, 2022

President Biden aims to 'make a window into men's souls,' pursuing total compliance.
Ominous speech demands compromise where no such equivocation is possible.
Recognize the threat, confront reality, or regret at leisure.

Woke is the mishapen idea that other people’s beliefs concern you: must censor.
Biden’s handlers left no stone unturned — the deaf and illiterate got the visual cue.
“How we burned in the camps… if only we had known we had nothing left to lose.”

(2,900 words or 14 minutes of your time.)

Sep 4, 2022

Seven times he used the word soul, juxtaposed with the words fear, division and darkness: “They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live, not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.”

Four times he used the word, light. The “light of truth... we can see the light. Light is now visible. Light that will guide us forward”

These 11 words in the latest Biden speech give one shivers. It was not just demagoguery that many have condemned. It raised the psychological reframing of the population to another level.

Many commentators noted the visuals. As American political commentator Ben Shapiro said, the U.S. presidency is all about imagery.

This was not an oversight. It was a purposeful act. The floodlights were blue at the periphery of the Independence Hall in Philadelphia, as Media Matters in full Fakt Cheka mode points out. However the entire central area seen through the cameras trained on the president was red and black.

Biden raised his voice and his fists. He did not punch the air with a smile. Instead the night was riven with a rictus.

As his eyes strobed through the script he narrowed the definition of loyalty until, by implication, to disagree with him made you a threat to the country.

“Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

What on Earth is he talking about? Nothing I can see has happened except in the primaries where people like Liz “twin towers” Cheney got payback. It’s the primaries. When the election comes in November, the people will have their say.

“MAGA forces do not respect the Constitution. MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.”

This is beyond left and right, this is language that must be parsed carefully for what it portends.

Two audiences

Painting your rivals as extremists is dangerous but standard political fare nowadays. Biden’s tone and the visuals were menacing, however, and you have to ask to what purpose. The architects of this speech intended to reach an audience on an emotional level but which audience?

The visuals affect those who don’t always pay attention to politicians’ verbiage or who struggle with the nuance of the words; those for whom the television volume might as well be muted — nonetheless the pictures convey a message.

The audience was not conservatives, let alone Trump’s followers. It was aimed in part at those in the population who are manipulated by fear, whose vulnerability leads them to follow the crowd or the latest thing, as Prof Matthias Desmet has laid out with the concept of mass psychosis.

The political technique is another matter, and the historical context is as clear as its use is shameful and ominous.

The messaging is emotional but targets a precise part of the spectrum; not only the visuals and the sentiments, but the use of affective language. Stephen Utych writes that when politicians impute to an individual or group a generalized negative potency it affects us emotionally and does so profoundly.

Its stamp is impressed over a longer period, “improving information recall and abstract thinking. For those who are exposed to negative affective language, negative evaluations of politicians persist more strongly in memory.” [1]

As the biologist and blogger Chris Martenson writes of Biden’s speech, “I judge [it] to be the worst in my life. It was divisive, corrosive, petty, mean… and dangerous. The chances of all this ending rather violently have now increased.”

The citadel

Imagine a regime that is not concerned to present its achievements in a positive light as it cannot or because its policies are destructive and divisive. Instead it seeks to generate the impression that it has popular support and that the population enthusiastically endorses the ruler regardless.

Emotion is best suited to this task: a sense of victimhood, threat and humiliation on the one hand, and belonging, restoration and redemption on the other. The motif is an enemy at the gates, diseased and malevolent, while in the citadel the elders of the state, the father figures, are armed with faith in technology, validated by modernity and the inevitability of progress.

It is important to consider the audience as much as the words.

They are disillusioned by instability, many of them politically naïve and lacking in the critical thinking skills necessary to look behind the visuals to grasp the motive.

The next stage will be to stir them up, to intoxicate them, not just with hatred for the deplorables but with nostalgia for what they have lost — even as they are warned it’s not coming back; that we live in the new normal.

By the way, that analysis of the emotional techniques of propaganda comes from a paper by Stefani Fontana, a master of research at Western Sydney University, on Permeating the Human Psyche: The Role of Emotions in Nazi Propaganda (2021). This was the technique of Joseph Goebbels. [2]

The stage of intoxication has not yet begun for the public at large, though perhaps this was the start. “No right to privacy,” “authoritarian leaders” and the “flames of political violence” are said to be the goals of the other side, but for how long?

Inverted meaning

Speaking at the birthplace of the Constitution Biden reeled off rights that the document does not mention while he has in the past opposed some that it does.

Listen closely and there is more evidence of inversion: meanings overturned, the misassociation of concepts, stress on particular values in place of others and ideas conveyed in the negative, by denial or ascribing them to another.

This is no mere schoolyard menace, whereby one threatens another, saying with a sneer, “I would never report you to the teacher.” This was a message for the second audience, the one seated around him.

While he called for choice and equality, the language was unmistakably that of exclusion and, by extension, an appeal to the inner party. He spoke of democracy and respecting elections, but then of managed outcomes, of equity and justice, which have a specific meaning to this class.

Part of it is projection: accusing others of what you yourself intend. Last week in a different speech Biden said something along the lines of (I can't find the quote) there would never be another flawed election. Was he perhaps intimating that there might not be another election — that being the most fortified way to ensure it’s not flawed?

Partly he is speaking in code to those cognizant of the real intent.

The import of the speech lay not merely in the visuals and words but also in the implication: drawing tight the lasso around political opposition to the point where the logical end is the U.S. becomes a one-party state, in which you may be free to vote but the outcome is assured or, again, fortified.

“And yet, history tells us that blind loyalty to a single leader and a willingness to engage in political violence is fatal to democracy.”

The syndicate

The precise make up of this inner party is not something I know, except by its actions.

We have seen how this group, and those they serve, are prepared to change violently the way of life of entire peoples, to crumple not just monarchs or presidents but whole nations to their knees, in order to reorder, reallocate or secure the natural resources of the globe; to steal assets or to remove competitors from the scene.

Just a few examples from modern times include:

Russia between 1881, with the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, and 1917;
World War I and its prolongation;
1930’s Germany as finance and corporations piled in behind the Nazis;
China and the barely-explored collaboration between the Rockefellers and Mao;
the CIA’s installation of Castro in the 1950s (see Ambassador Earl T. Smith);
JFK’s assassination in the 1960s;
Salvador Allende’s overthrow in Chile in the 1970s;
Operation Gladio and terror from Central America to Europe, 1950s to 1980s.

And with the ending of the communist project in the 1990s, the policy came home to the United States and Agenda 21 was launched.

Network journalists with whom I once worked would insist these events were the outcome of lone wolves or disparate, one-off events.

If they are the product of chaos, of a random world, why do they all tend in the same direction: supposedly necessitating the removal of personal liberties and rights of belief, of bodily integrity, privacy and self-possession?

“Surely, in a world of chance, we’d win sometimes?”

Answer came there none.

“If nothing is connected, why do the World Economic Forum insist it’s precisely interconnectedness that necessitates a Great Reset? If there is no agenda, what’s Agenda 21?”

If you still insist that “things just happen” we are now witness to the culmination of all those many happenstances. Western populations in particular have found themselves in the ever-tightening grip of the petro-pharmaceuticals, digital-finance and the military. Coincidence or not, we are staring at the abyss.

“Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?”
— Carnegie Foundation, testimony of Norman Dodd [3]

Left-right deception

It is time to acknowledge that the left-right political paradigm was a snowjob (an intensive effort at persuasion or deception) from the start.

Where did it emerge: in the French National Assembly after the “Revolution” — another putsch falsely represented as a triumph of the common good, the people's will, just as in Russia.

What was Stalin’s phrase: “left deviationists,” he called his opponents; Mao spoke of both left and right deviationists in a 1953 speech.

You may have a two party system, baying like animals from opposite sides of the chamber, while the permanent bureaucracy, or the Deep State, runs continuity of government. Or you may have a dictator to guide you between Scylla and Charybdis.

Both systems serve the same purpose, to create an enemy while the Judas goats herd you into the woolshed.

Who perpetrated the French putsch? There is a lot of evidence that secret and professional societies or “civil society” organizations were infiltrated to control the official bureaucracy — just as in Covid.

It is clear as day that the Covid response was orchestrated in advance, was launched with a campaign of massive exaggeration and scare tactics, was disproportionate, and was used to reverse civil rights and impose surveillance in a way that had nothing to do with a variant of the seasonal flu — that is, if one insists that Covid is a thing, as opposed to the grim reality of Covid shots.

As with Lockstep and Lockdown, orchestration requires organization and secrecy. These organisations plan slowly, over time. Listen to the interviews of David Rockefeller with Charlie Rose. He tells you.

Does left-right have some Masonic symbolism? Walk on the white squares, or walk on the black, just don't step on the cracks. When you go left-right-left-right what are you doing but moving straight ahead... through the twin pillars.

Niet Normaal

“It is not normal,” is common Dutch or German parlance, an appeal to conformity. And in the light of what those peoples were asked to conform to, it resounds with something of a bell’s toll to my ears.

The pursuit of justice has a French resonance, the ring of Robespierre. We know the Politically Correct meaning of justice is not equity; and equity is not equality.

When “the pursuit of justice,” appears in the same sentence as — and followed by — “the rule of law” and “the very soul of this country” the objectives hove into view.

Biden’s seven times’ reference to the soul, has historical resonance.

It was Elizabeth I who said she had no desire to “make windows into men’s souls” yet she presided over the first modern police state and the inception of Western spying, since when Sir Francis Walsingham has sprouted Five Eyes.

The soul was precisely the target of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the Weather Underground movement, said the communists talked less about the poor than how they planned to retain power and prevent a counter-revolution. The answer: by re-educating the population and, by their own estimates, exterminating 25 million Americans who would not learn. Bill Ayers, a leader of the WU, is a long-time associate of (former) president Barack Obama.

As for the “light of truth... we can see the light. Light is now visible. Light that will guide us forward” it needs little interpretation.

Many such dog whistles are embedded in globalist talk, such as the rules-based international order. It does not mean a level playing field for countries and their peoples. It means a set of aspirations, drawn up by the corporate owners to reach the “Liberal World Order.” They are exclusionary not because only the wealthy can afford these luxury beliefs, but because their purpose is the control of resources and the digital enslavement of people.

These are not my words (with the exception of enslavement) these are the globalists’ own words. See my last Substack letter, Crisis Update - Hate And Depopulate. [4]

Bodily integrity, including the mind and the soul, is the fundamental property right without which there can be no other.

If you give no informed consent for what is done to your body, if you “will own nothing and be happy” as the World Economic Forum has proposed, if your digital identity is merged legally and contractually with your physical being, if your body is permanently altered by a product whose patent expressly describes it as a mechanism to use your body — then you have no rights.

When the Woke hiss “justice” like the three witches of Macbeth you know they’re coming for your soul.

“I believe America is at an inflection point, one of those moments that determine the shape of everything that’s to come after. And now, America must choose to move forward or to move backwards, to build a future or obsess about the past, to be a nation of hope and unity and optimism or a nation of fear, division and of darkness.” [5]

Woke is the misshapen idea that other people’s beliefs — as beliefs not actions — affect or concern you and thus you are entitled to constrain others.

I have said before that Wokeness or Political Correctness is authoritarian and the flavour of totalitarianism is irrelevant. It might resemble fascism, communism or any new gender of -ism.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Moneycircus

Discussion about this post