The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Everything the human race does for good is taken by the comptrollers and turned to something bad, but is there another way?
Good intentions turned bad
Many many years ago I read a heavy duty sci fi trilogy by Stephen R. Donaldson, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Only the first three were published at the time I read them but that was enough. I disappeared into that world and when I re-emerged my marriage was over. But what really matters is my takeaway, all these years later. I was young and idealistic back then and my optimism was shattered - by those books. Everything the hero of the books did for good turned bad, and strangely the things done for evil intent often had unintended good outcomes. I am not so sure about the bad becoming good, but after a lifetime of watching I can attest to the fact that good intentions go bad, far too often.
It’s not that WE, those of us with good intentions, do bad stuff; it’s that someone else takes the good things that we do for humanity, and turns them around so that they serve the comptrollers. At that point, our ground level surges of good intentions get warped, in whatever way is necessary, to keep the power where it is, with the comptrollers.
They take our good and make it bad
There was nothing wrong with feminism. It was a genuine grass roots movement of naturally independent women - I was one of them, the result of mothers being given testosterone as a treatment for morning sickness, and so giving birth to girls who had a pretty high potential to produce testosterone when we needed it. So we did. To escape the abuse. Life for our mothers was abusive. We were independent women first, who were not willing to live under the same awful conditions as our mothers. We became a movement second, just because there was a lot of us. We were not the creation of the comptrollers, but they did ultimately take control and pervert the movement that started off as a grass roots celebration of our own - of women’s - lives.
Everything we started for love was turned into hate
The same has happened with every grass roots creation since. We created environmentalism out of a genuine desire to protect nature, they stole it and turned it into “global warming” in order to keep us under control. We strengthened the idea of the “social safety net” where no-one falls through the gaps, and we did that because we cared about those like us who fell into hard times. That also got stolen from us and turned into something punitive, something controlling, that has not one shred of “care” left in it; that perpetuates the damage rather than enhancing the lives of people in crisis. Everything we started for love was turned into hate, until we have finally reached a point where we believe that everything designed out of love, is hateful; everything designed by working class (indigenous including white indigenous) people to ensure our lives remain tolerable has been taken over. Where our efforts have not been dismantled altogether, the remnants do harm rather than good.
At this point, post covid, we have nothing left, not even the ability to organise in any way to get us out of this trap we have blindly skidded into. We so thoroughly believe that we are intrinsically BAD that we can do nothing good. None of the Middle Eastern, Old Testament, religions, with their belief in “original sin”, has helped in that regard.
Some of the ideas of the World Economic Forum are actually GOOD
For the most part, the ideas put forward by the WEF are actually good. Yes, they are good! Don’t believe me? Well just go and read them from the perspective of good intent, and withhold judgement on their potential to be turned against us. If they were used FOR us, the outcomes could be good (if we want a hyper-industrialised and technological world that is). Turned against us, to make us comply, the outcomes are bad.
SMART cities
SMART cities are a fantastic idea
…or at least, clever cities are. I cannot imagine a better place to live than a village with everything I need within walking distance or short commute. That would be a clever city, and that’s how we used to live, after all. That’s the kind of life, village life, that suits us. What is bad is how the same infrastructure that serves our needs can be turned into our prison if taken over by those of ill intent and enforced through some form of surveillance and electronic control. But if we fight against clever cities, as distinct from electronically enforced SMART cities, we keep ourselves in a prison of stupid cities instead; in a prison of very very badly designed cities. Why do I say this?
A few days ago I attended a session locally about the adequacy of health services in the area in which I live, a coastal village 40 minutes drive from the closest regional centre. A few issues emerged related to the inadequate supply of skilled medical personnel locally, the inaccessibility of even local let alone regional specialist services except by car, the poor co-ordination between the services, and the lack of public transport access to the services in a village with no footpaths or bus shelters to protect public transport users from the searing sun, pouring rain, or Antarctic winds.
At this session I found myself advocating for much smarter cities than we currently have, despite my ideological fear of the WEF model of SMART cities. My very un-smart location is already a prison for the physically challenged. For us, seriously, it can't actually get much worse. Yet we have now allowed ourselves to be manipulated into opposing SMART cities because, when electronically enforced, they can and WILL become part of the enforcement of total control over the entire population. By contrast, stupid cities only randomly imprison the infirm or challenged, often women; people who are already under an utterly destructive level of external control.
…so why do they have to become bad?
Why do SMART cities have to be forced on us? Surely we can develop the concept of clever cities without the electronic enforcement? Remember all those optimistic movies of the 60s where life was a dream? We did dream once.
Surely, if we fix our city infrastructure, the population will use it in the best possible way?
Personally, I would not need to be forced to give up my car if I had alternatives. It is taking far too much of my very limited income to keep my car roadworthy. But it is my number 2 financial priority behind keeping a roof over my head, and ahead of eating or heating. Without it I am a prisoner of a small, inadequate 1 bedroom flat, as there are no footpaths for a motorised wheelchair, and no adequate bus services. And as a woman, without a car, I am a prisoner at night anyway, walking lonely streets with inadequate lighting and too few pedestrians to give a feeling of safety.
Many years ago this village did have a main street with the retail infrastructure necessary for the residents, before it transitioned into a tourist town with 30 odd cafes and restaurants and no green grocer. But it never had the accessibility infrastructure. It was always car dependent, which can be said about most of Australia. Australia has been designed for cars.
For me, when this re-design is all done, and funded at great expense by the tax payer, then and only then will I consider getting rid of my car. My car IS my safety blanket. It is the only key I have that opens my cell door. Without it I would be a permanent prisoner of my one bedroom downmarket flat, unable to access the services I need when I need them.
To those of you afraid that you will become a prisoner of the SMART cities, let me assure you that, if you live long enough, you might just find that you are even more a prisoner of the stupid cities we are currently living in. SMART cities won’t be any worse for me than my current living conditions, and may even be better. That’s the reality - for ME.
We must separate each and every life enhancing concept being proposed by the WEF, from the concept of electronic enforcement. We CAN have great, life enhancing infrastructure without electronic enforcement.
Build the infrastructure and we will use it!
If the infrastructure is there, we will choose to use it. We’re not that stupid! We’re not that self destructive. There will be no need for force to keep us in local areas. We will want to be there just as long as we do have the choice to leave when we want to leave. So where is that infrastructure? SMART cities cannot happen without it, and clever cities cannot happen without it. Are we doomed to the poor and crumbling infrastructure of stupid cities, into perpetuity, because we cannot imagine true progress without compulsion?
Of course, I live in a coastal village where most of the advanced world lives in large cities, that pose a completely different range of design problems. For more discussion on this whole topic, see the following Stack.
The need for intelligent conversation
I have just raised one topic here, SMART or smart cities. But they are just one aspect of the conversation we need to have.
We must start talking. There are some realities we have to face that it would be better for us to make conscious decisions about, rather than allowing the comptrollers to make all the decisions for us, because we are too afraid to voice our deepest thoughts and fears.
Do we want increased industrialisation to cater for continued population growth?
It is patently obvious that population growth and industrialisation go together, hand in hand. We can probably manage the population we have, and even increased population, so long as we support it with increasingly clever industrialisation. But there are two questions here. First, do we want increased industrialisation? I know I don’t. And second, even if we want to, how long can we keep this up? How many more billions of people can we support with improved industrialisation before something pops? Are we mad enough to imagine we can do this indefinitely? No? If not, when do we start to talk about it the implications of ever increasing population and industrialisation, and the ever increasing levels of force being required to maintain it?
Do we want forced population control to keep our population sustainable?
Would we prefer sustained or reduced or population over time? If so how do we achieve it without disease and war taking out large numbers of women (it is the reduction of women that reduces the birth rate, not the reduction of men)? The Chinese had a serious attempt at it with the one child policy and created a social disaster of murdered female babies and a surplus unmarried men. No-one else has even tried, until the apparent genocide of covid. None of us wants to be the victim of genocide, but, if we want any life on the planet to continue into the far future, at what point do we check human population growth and how?
Are we even capable of asking and answering the tough questions?
We are not planning ahead. We are not asking ourselves the tough questions and coming up with potential answers. And when we do nothing, we deservedly get what we are getting now. If we will not have the tough conversations ourselves and make the tough decisions for how to sustain this planet in some kind of balance, then someone else will do it for us. AND THEY ARE.
That is what the World Economic Forum is doing. It is a group willing to talk about the tough questions and come up with and implement very tough answers - answers that I do not want to live with or re-incarnate back into; answers that will create an industrial and technological prison that is only sustainable if we obey all the rules, and completely deny nature and our humanity.
Do we want this?
Whether we like it or not, they have come up with a “complete plan.” If we do not want what the WEF has planned for us, how do we find and agree on new pathways and how we change course to get to where we want to go? Can we collaboratively duplicate all the grand ideas they have on their website and come up with a viable alternative that we DO want? My preferred pathway is some kind of attunement with nature, but we cannot do that with the current population AND the current and totally mindless rate of population growth. Something has to change.
We can have uncontrolled human population growth alongside continued growth of industrial and technological infrastructure, that has to be coordinated by powerful humans who make the decisions for the rest of us. The more technology and the more industry, the more centralised life must be.
OR, we can do something to bring the human population to sustainable levels and potentially return to some kind of decentralised harmony with nature. In this case, in the absence of centralised control mechanisms, it is most likely that nature makes the population control decisions for us, via floods, famines, fires, pestilences, plagues - take your pick.
OR, is there a middle path?
Is there a middle path?
What might it be?
Is anyone up for the work it might take to design it?
Where would we start?
Those are questions, not answers?
If this post has changed the quality of your life in some way, and you would like to say thank you, you can make a one-off donation through PayPal below. I am retired and live solely on a state pension, so every little bit really does help.
Christine, we need to connect to a Level 6 person to know what the best answers are to your questions. May the universe lead one to you or us. 🙏
We could start by identifying, and eliminating Talmudic Terrorists.