I have been following the Grand Jury trials and some of the interviews of the Corona Investigative Committee, and I have learned a lot of things that I was not aware of, especially the extent of the scheme, which makes me once again regret my comments in 2020, when I still believed the government to have done the best they could in light of the pandemic. Today, we know there was no pandemic and that we are talking about a much more sinister and grandiose threat.
Nevertheless, it is possible that the government did the best it could, in which case their best was not good enough for all the people who have since suffered.
I am not an economist, financial expert or historian, so I will not comment on the testimonies of the people in those fields, and so for the witnesses from the industries and from the logistical parts of the WHO.
There was some confusion in me as to whether the pandemic was a complete fabrication, caused by false PCR positives and scare tactics of a normally existing cold or that the viral threat was man-made and deliberately released. From the testimonies of some people (Dr Shankara Chetty and Soňa Peková) it was pretty clear that the different strains of this virus could not have naturally mutated from one to the other (mutations do not reverse) and that we were dealing with different disease patterns, causing different allergic reactions in some people. That points to deliberate release of more than one agent, and a huge threat to what they could (and would) release next from their bio-weapon facilities.
In the meantime, I found an interview with Dr Richard Fleming that leaves little doubt that we are dealing with bioweapons as the definition of a bioweapon is that of a modified agent that does not bring benefit to people’s health. That makes both the virus (which was tampered with) as well as the vax, bioweapons.
However, the details of that science go beyond my expertise.
What I would like to do is make a few comments on some of the psychological, political and philosophical conclusions. Especially, I’d like to look at the motivations, not only of the schemers (those who deliberately developed, released and lied about the disease and the inoculation), earlier referred to as Mr Global and its total disregard for human dignity, but also of those they are toying with. Why was it so easy for them to persuade the politicians? Why did so many people get caught up in the fear induction and what can we do in light of this psychology to overcome the threat and prevent this from going any further?
There are five comments I’d like to respond to.
1. The notion of academic research, schooling and media coverage having been controlled by those who fund such research, and the way the academic system itself is inducive to keeping new ideas at bay in this manner.
2. The notion that disciplines have been brought together to create a new science, which, I think responsible for the entire mental health crisis, which is also part of this scheme, and is now targeted to try and create artificial intelligence.
3. The notion of them redefining language to suit their goal, and the philosophical consequences of their rewriting our political structure.
4. The notion of systems within systems, of groups and subsets, and how difficult, if not impossible, it is to get out of certain beliefs. But that applies to the masses as much as to the schemers, which may be the angle we need to overcome their imposition.
5. Lastly, the psychology and the way it directs people’s strengths and weaknesses, which can explain all conflicts, differences and misunderstandings that have emerged between partners, families and cultural groups, and which are more or less consistent the world over.
I am a philosopher of psychological type (psychotype) and I believe that the answers and solutions lie in understanding our psychological diversity. The specifics of the theory can be found on my philosophy blog and in my books, but I will start with a very brief outline so the reader can put my comments in perspective.
First of all, let me point out that psychotype theory is a holistic approach. It takes the personality (the whole person) into account and explains their motivations, beliefs, behaviour and communication in light of their immaterial mental processes, the exchange of mental energy. This is opposed to the dominant academic view that explains people’s behaviour in light of their neurology and genetic disposition, taking a materialist and reductionist stance.
Psychology in brief.
We need to realize that we are not psychological clones anymore than we are physical clones. Yes, I know, researchers say that “we’re all individuals”, but they measure every person to an ideal set of brain functions or hormonal levels and medicate those that don’t measure up.
Our mental energy is in constant flux, making it possible for our inner permanent Self to communicate with its environment and get what it needs to survive. A person in whom the Self is not developed either becomes autistic or psychotic; they lack the ability of healthy communication. Every entity relates and communicates through information. Therefore, all our information is relative to the other entity. Some scientists measure energy in electrical current, in metabolic joules or in physical particles, but mental energy is also part of this information exchange, and, as we all know from experience, nothing is as fast as a thought, so that no laboratory can measure it. That is why we say that matter follows energy and energy follows thought.
We all know about evolution theory and natural selection, and the notion that we need diversity to stay strong as a group. A colony of clones, like bacteria, is very vulnerable. Likewise, without psychological diversity, nothing would be achieved and we’d live in a dogmatic unchanging world, in which everybody would notice the same things and think the same thoughts. Some might argue that that diversity comes from upbringing, but there are too many examples of generations growing up in doctrines that impose just one view, yet they change the moment the oppression is gone; that would not be possible were it nurture only. If it were that easy to change people’s survival mode, we’d have long been extinct. Likewise, the diversity is only too obvious within families, so that, even if it isn’t nurture, neither is it purely genetic (which is a code for the physical body).
The answer is, of course, that nurture and nature both play a role and influence each other; that all illness is psychosomatic because of that interaction and that neither the matter alone nor the environment alone are deterministic. The preferred mental functions start developing in the womb and that evolves in one direction. Imagine a riverbed, in which the water follows the easiest path, that which has been carved out already, and it is no longer possible for the water to decide to go another way. With each sensory input and each thought, the ‘mind bed’ gets more pronounced. Measurements in neurological impulses show this pattern, because of the plasticity of the brain, which adapts to habitual behaviour.
The best way to understand psychotypes is to imagine styles of music; they are not tangible and not exactly determined in their limits, because musical interaction (information exchange) is fluid, yet those who know music will recognize a style instantaneously, and those styles are very real.
In short, the most important thing to understand is that we are not and cannot be all alike and that that is a good thing. That different personality types learn differently, need to move differently, sense and notice different things, have different emotions, have a different sense of justice, have a different need for company, relate differently to authority, interpret concepts differently, have different natural talents and skills, have a different sense of community, BUT need equal respect.
I use the acronym VITAL, because these psychological differences are essential for human survival and progress.
1. VALUE: each type and trait are of equal value to the world; there are no “bad” types.
2. INBORN: we are born with our information filters (see the river bed); we do not choose or change our type, and the division of types is constant across cultures and times.
3. TENDENCIES: personality type is about inclinations, because it is about psychic energy, and does NOT determine specific beliefs or actions (which are influenced by the environment and personal experiences).
4. ANIMATE: There is no static measure, as life forms have two-way communication (as opposed to inanimate objects) and are constantly adapting.
5. LIMITED: Each type is limited to their own perspective; nobody knows better. Everybody is stuck in a mind, so no one person (no matter their education) can crawl into another perspective, yet exactly because of that, do we often not notice our biases; we assume that what we observe and think is self-evident.
And because information IS existence and our minds deal with information and have never experienced anything else, it influences everything, including how we see others, what we believe objective, how we feel, think, see, hear, interpret, and how we do science. It transcends all other groupings, such as culture, gender, ethnicity, religion, orientation and social class.
Hence, the clashes we see are happening in every culture, in every family, in every society, in every gender group etc.
There are 16 different types; no more no less. That is because information itself has only four aspects. Whether human, tree, animal or neutrino, an entity can only do four things with information:
1. Be aware of it (pay attention) or not.
2. Notice or not notice (perception) what is in that awareness field.
3. Make a judgment about that perception: is it dangerous or real?
4. Take action or not, now or later. In other words: react.
To explain this a bit more vividly: If I am in a room, I do not notice what happens on the road and vice versa. I have to pay attention (1). I notice a big dark blob, whether tangible or imagined (2). I judge whether it is real or not, whether it is dangerous or friendly; after all, it could be a car coming at me at full speed (3). In a fraction of a second, I need to decide on action and jump (4).
These aspects, in psychological terms, of which each person naturally prefers one, are: Extraversion or Introversion (1), Sensory or iNtuitive perception (2), deductive (Truth-based) or inductive (Feeling or value-based) reasoning (3), and Judicious or Persuasive implementation (4).
Thus, four aspects of information, each with two poles: we are aware or not, notice or not, judge yes or no, act or not. All combinations make for a total of 16 different types. This is the only personality type theory that can explain why there are 16 types and not more or less; the others have taken a random number (based on their observations), but without evolutionary or information theory support.
Besides that, Jung did not simply pull his theory out of thin air. He conversed with philosophers and physicists about it, and applied it in his psychiatric practice.
That is the very basis of it; better explanations are on my blog and I will explain some more as I discuss the points below.
1. Let me start with the conclusion that 50-90% of scientific articles in medical journals cannot be trusted to be accurate; that the pharmaceutical industry owns the journals and funds the research, that they often represent a conflict of interest and that many ‘research’ articles are written and published without proper peer review. Mainstream media is in the hands of the same powerful puppeteers, and will report only what is pre-approved.
Let me emphasize that this is true in every discipline. Those who do not agree with the accepted viewpoints are ousted, their careers destroyed and their writing ridiculed. Likewise, for those who stepped out of the system and went independent from the start, so as to have the chance to research and write what they believed rather accept a pre-approved thesis topic. I know this from people who work in archaeology, and from personal experience in philosophy and psychology.
A few examples are the popular science writer, Michio Kaku, who may be a brilliant physicist, but knows nothing about the mind, yet whose popular book “The future of the mind”, is based solely in neuroscience. Likewise, a Yale English prof, writing under the guise of a biography attacks type theory, without understanding the first bit about the topic, and yet, her book is promoted by popular radio stations and by public libraries as a psychology book.
In light of what I heard in the Grand Jury model proceedings; I now believe that such writers are used (with or without their knowledge) to destroy the other perspective. In other words, the “long arm of the inquisition” stretches way further than previously thought.
And because schools, libraries and media blindly accept such writings, because of the credentials attached to the name, these views become ingrained in the population from very young onwards, and most never again question it. How many of you refer to your brain instead of your mind when you talk about your thoughts or beliefs?
Hence, during the trial, there were those who quoted titles and academic credentials to support their view, unconsciously reinforcing the exact view that they came to the conclusion cannot be totally trusted.
The reason I bring this up, is because we need to be aware of our biases, most of which are unconscious, because we have, all of us, grown up with them, but so have the people on trial, and we must be careful not to reinforce their flawed thinking.
For example, the assumption that mostly intellectuals fall for the deceptions is based in such an assumption, because we unconsciously equate academics with intellectuals. But that is no longer an accurate assessment, since it is expected that all people go to university, and, therefore, it is often those who easily accept the status quo who find their career in academia. Independent intellectuals bow out.
The problem of academia today is that everybody is specialized. Everybody is expected to write what their peers (and certainly their teachers if they are not yet graduated) agree with and because similar personality types enter similar fields, and without communication across disciplines, it reduces diversity, tolerance and open-mindedness. In other words, the system works in-group beliefs and dogma in the hand.
2. Another conclusion about academia was the deliberate creation of new disciplines out of the merging of existing ones. Mentioned was NBIC, an effort to combine nanotech (atoms), biotech (genes), ICT (bits) and “cognotech” (neurons), in which it is assumed that, because all deal with information particles, they must all be related and convertible.
The schemers, being all of a similar psychological type, as well as the intellectuals within those four disciplines, will, indeed, more easily believe that the four can be used to explain and alter humanity and create artificial intelligence. But the reason they believe this, is because of their own mind being primarily concerned with sets and subsets, with deduction and materialism (see below).
Carl Jung pointed out a long time ago, that science maintains one standard ideal, because it works with means and statistics, which might work for the hard sciences, where the object is inanimate or statistical data, but without seeing that in the life sciences, not one individual could possibly match that ideal. However, it is from that ideal that they set expectations and then proceed to label or medicate those who do not fit. This applies to mental health care, but also to school standards.
Academic specialization and “peer reviews” work this kind of bias in the hand, as the academic system has been run mostly by people who naturally gravitate towards data and hard sciences, because, until recently, being good at mathematics was a prerequisite for getting the grades to enter university.
In the sixties, an ideological attempt to merge genetics, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, psychology, physics and information science resulted in the new discipline known as “neuroscience”, the word already implying its deductive and materialist focus. Since then, most holistic psychologists (those addressing the whole person and the complete personality) have been bullied out of their own discipline, because this merger replaced academic psychology, but not any of the other mentioned fields – at least in the anglophone world. Every new student is indoctrinated with the notion that people’s emotions, beliefs, perceptions, actions and reasoning (all of which immaterial) can be fully explained in genetic, neurological and hormonal terms, and most have internalized those views.
So, even if I agree with Meredith Miller that the double bind relationships people have with the government are identical to those in abusive homes, I do not agree with the explanation. Not every person has an identical “perceived act of kindness”; some types are naturally more vulnerable than others, and I object to the use of “disorders” to label every person who does not fit the ideal. As she said, such terminology comes from the DSM5, the “diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders” of the American Psychiatrists Association, who are also groomed by this belief. Not only that, but their new terminology excuses the behaviour of exactly those who are causing harm.
I argue that, in light of what is happening in medical science at the moment, this merger was instituted to assist the sale of mental health drugs and to create a similar victim attitude in the population as we have had for much longer in medical science, in which a person was considered a collection of detachable organs, totally dependent on external treatments and deterministic traits. – As long as people feel they are victims, they will keep accepting the pills or jabs.
And that seems to be exactly the condition that led to what is happening today, because, as Mattias Desmet explains, the attitude of being a victim, of being depressed, of having nothing to live for creates the perfect environment for mass formation and totalitarianism. This also explains why so many young people fell for the narrative.
As I have written many times before, we created a generation of young adults who are writing dystopias and hiding in fantasy, because they have been brought up with “objective science” in which the ‘truth’ had to be told and spiritualism was ridiculed, and therefore have been inundated with threats of asteroids, super volcanoes, global warming and so on. Schools and media have actively contributed to this generalized despondency.
3. That brings me to the politics and philosophy and the usurping of common language, with the purpose of enticing the population to believe the threats and get them to obey.
The obvious ones are the redefinition of “vaccine”, “infectious”, “immuno-compromised” and “mental health”, but also “sustainable development”, “biodiversity”, “ethics”, “climate change” and “global warming”.
In brief for the reader, as per the conclusions: a vaccine is only a vaccine if it prevents disease in the vaccinated individual. It does not mitigate disease and it does not weaken symptoms. To use the definition for those intentions is to deliberately deceive people.
Likewise, being infectious or infected cannot be diagnosed by a PCR or antigen test. Only symptoms can be used to diagnose, and a positive test has no meaning at all, as fruits and inanimate objects also tested positive.
More dangerous redefinitions came with governments advertising that “children also get strokes”, as if that was a normal occurrence in children, but it was not. Only since the inoculations made by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen, did children start having strokes. Therefore, that is not an acceptable side effect. And “immuno-compromised” has been given the blame for side effects and corona deaths, without explaining that the vax causes this compromise in many cases, because it causes an auto-immune reaction.
Likewise, misusing “ethics” or “ethical” for product marketing to make believe a product is the right choice. First of all, ethical has nothing to do with right and wrong, because it is about innate values, not about behaviour (which is where “moral” is used). Secondly, nobody can decide ethical for another person, exactly because it is about innate values and an innate sense of justice, which cannot be defined.
And the afore mentioned DSM manual has been redefining “mental health” in terms of disorders, in which only obedient citizens are considered healthy (see above).
From a political standpoint, phrases like “sustainable development” were said to be used to force the world into a technocratic tyranny.
Sustainable development, of course, has a positive ring in most people’s ears, because it suggests using the resources of the Earth in a sensible manner. By using this term, the schemers claim they are dealing with the environmental crisis in a way that allows a sustainable future for all people, while, in fact, they believe that if there are less people, life will be better for those who survive and they seem to be looking to eliminate those they deem not valuable.
But I don’t totally agree with Patrick Wood about “technocracy” opposing capitalism. Capitalism (like communism and socialism) are economic distinctions – possibly what the schemers have in mind – while technocracy, along with all other “-cracies”, is about how to govern. Of course, democracy and capitalism often go hand in hand, because they both rely on popularity (of people or products), and both are, therefore, very vulnerable to being abused.
To repeat from an earlier post, the definition of government is “organizing PUBLIC life”, which does not, never did and never will include people’s private bodies. That politicians have to protect the people is not in their job description either. To assume the right to protect others is invasion of privacy. People are adults; they can protect themselves. The only job of the government is to make the means available for them to do so. However, today’s governments, almost everywhere, knowingly withheld all the safe means to deal with the virus and enforced what they knew to be dangerous.
Besides that, in a democracy, there is no such thing as “national security” that allows them to withhold documents or other information from the people, because the nation IS the people and therefore, the government cannot withhold information from them without violating their contract with the people.
In that light, I should make a correction to my own last post, where I said that it was “outright criminal”. But that was misusing the language, because it was not criminal as no law was broken. It was, however, legalized murder.
In short, from a philosophical perspective, they are in breach of all ethical values (because those are personal and cannot be controlled by a government), most moral values (which is represented by the Human Rights Declaration), which they signed and therefore subscribed to. In addition, they violated the Nuremberg code, the Helsinki agreement, and even, according to Richard Fleming, the bioweapons treaty.
But in many cases, they also breeched legal agreements, not only where it concerns the definition of government and its limitations, but also, because their own legal rules state that the people shall be informed of changes and will have a voice, and that was not heeded. Laws were changed secretly or without waiting to inform the people, and, it appears that this has been done at the level of the United Nations; they have been rewriting our constitutions, which makes them usurpers. As a consequence, they have freed us from any obligation they say we have to obey or follow national rules – exactly the justification used by the founders of the United States against the English king. The only power they have left is military power, but no legal or moral claim.
Everybody who has read my previous writing knows that I am not a fan of democracy, for exactly the reason that it is corruptible, and that I do believe we need proper leadership to help us survive the environmental and mental health crises. I do not believe democracy has much bearing on equality or freedom; distribution based on compliance or popularity is not equality and is not distributive justice.
However, I envision proper leadership in terms of people who know how to be leaders because of their personality type and not any other distinction; not race, not gender, not riches, bloodline or popularity. Those who are aiming to create one world government do not have the right personality and neither do the current politicians – despite my brief belief to the contrary in my open letter. Those who rely on military power and resort to secrecy and fear-induction, are not leaders.
And even if a natural leader, the system must have a manner in which to replace them, would they go too far, like a captain on a ship can be ousted. In other words, the system needs to be organized so that one crazy person cannot ruin everything.
However, as we are seeing today, democracy (and some other systems) attracts similar types of people to power and they reinforce each other’s delusions, so that the system needs to be organized so that even a group of like-minded lunatics cannot take over. We need type diversity across the board.
In this, I mostly agree with Ariane Bilheran, and I just wanted to point out that it is predominantly in anglophone countries that materialism and behaviourism seem to have been promoted in the middle of last century, which is still evident with their quoting Galton, Watson and Skinner.
I agree with Ariane, that we are talking about mass terrorism from governments on their people.
Interestingly, she mentions school closure as a sacrifice for children, but that is also based on an ingrained belief, namely that schools educate children. But they do not: they school children in the beliefs of the state. Sure, children may lose out in playing with their peers and parents lose childcare, but education is better done at home.
In book eight of The Republic, Plato discusses four imperfect societies and how they evolve from each other by changing which type of person is valued. Excessive desire for ambition (timarchy) leads to wealth, excessive desire for wealth (oligarchy) leads to freedom; excessive desire for freedom (democracy) leads to chaos and madness, and excessive power madness will induce the mob to welcome the tyrant (tyranny). Plato specifically points out that both oligarchy and democracy have many idlers.
Plato also said that the only way a city (community) can function is if all contribute from their own job and we can trust them to do so, like the farmers grow the grain, the baker makes the bread and that leaves others to be doctors or politicians or philosophers. Of course, if the baker poisons their bread, the whole city will get sick, which is what is happening now with the pharmaceutical industry. In that case, we have to return to doing it ourselves. Thus, the exact opposite of what the schemers have in mind, the solution is to return to localized control and everybody contributing according to their own inborn psychological skills. This will also give them back their sense of value as a human being and a purpose to live for.
4. Another belief that is ingrained in people today is that we are intelligent and can understand most of reality. This is largely the belief of the AI focused community. But, as I said, they are naturally inclined to look at the components of a set and to believe that the full understanding can be found there.
What most people forget is that reality is layered in systems within systems. Atoms are subsystems of molecules, molecules of substances, substances of beings or objects, beings or objects of yet bigger systems, like lifeforms are subsets of ecosystems and those are subsets of the Earth.
It has been long accepted that Gaia is a holistic system that has as much a homeostasis and a human body does, so that individual humans are to the Earth as the flora and fauna inside our bodies is to us. We are a system within a system.
Systems of a different level cannot communicate with each other. Like we will never be able to understand the communication of two bacteria in our body, but one dose of antibiotics might eradicate them, so we will not be able to tell whether the Earth communicates with her peers, but she can just as easily take antibiotics to eradicate us. We need the Earth, but she does not need us. Sure, we can make her ill with our behaviour, like the cells in our body can make us ill, but archaeological evidence abounds that she has disposed of humanity before.
And this system within systems view applies to politics as well, and the nation state is a step up from the individuals and therefore, the needs of the nation state are not identical to those of the people; individuals are disposable in light of the bigger scheme.
In short, we may need to understand the subsets for our hard sciences, but if we ignore the holistic view, we are missing the context.
5. I will finish with a brief discussion of the immediate problems that cause some of us to stand in protest, some to follow and be fearful, and some to try and coerce others to their ideology.
Remember that type psychology is about inclinations, not specific behaviour, and that additional circumstances lead to corruption and abuse, so that I am by no means attacking those in the general population who happen to have the same type as those who are currently destroying our future. I often use the example of Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr, who were both of the same personality type. Both excellent orators, convinced of their ideal, with the people skills to motivate vast groups of people and passion behind their words, yet as we all know, one used those traits to destroy and the other to liberate.
Therefore, if we understand the “style” of a person’s information processing, then we can get a good idea of their weaknesses and strengths and how to influence them, and even whether they are natural leaders or not, but we can never know their exact thoughts.
Now, in light of the schemers; they may be slightly different types, but their apparent obsession with technology and materialism, makes it likely that they reason deductively, value truth and data, but are not aware of holistic or emotive aspects of reality. They have a dream that artificial intelligence is possible, having grown up with science fiction stories and the message that if all the bits, atoms and neurons can be modified and influenced, it will naturally change the whole person from the bottom up; that if you can manipulate the hardware, you can read or change the software. More so, they believe that the content of the files can be read from the wiring of the computer. So convinced of their own superiority that they believe they have the right and ability to program the rest of the population to become clones. Yet exactly they, who believe the mind is totally dependent on matter and who ridicule religion in favour of evolution, dismiss the foundation of evolution theory (diversity) for mental processes.
The politicians most often mentioned as recruited by these schemers to be groomed as “young leaders” are all EJs, meaning that they are extraverts with a judicious expression, which very briefly means that they believe the world to be as they see it and that, therefore, they have the right to declare those who disagree as crazy, wrong, anti-social or to simply ignore them. Their social stance tends to be that everybody has to give up some of their individuality for the group and, because that is self-evident to them, they accept that as a justification to force others or call them selfish. They may truly believe they are doing the world a favour; that the ‘simple’ people (those who are wrong) must be helped or forced to obey “for their own good”.
In that light, I think they were ‘chosen’ to be groomed through a combination of having the right social background (influential parents or status) and a personality that jumped on it when offered.
Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau and possibly (though it is harder to assess a personality if all clips you get on TV are dubbed), Emmanuel Macron, are EFJs, meaning they have a huge feeling component, which they use to relate to people; they come across and kind and caring and compassionate. They have the skills to lead groups, using their heart to motivate people. However, their logical reasoning (T) is weak, meaning they might be easily convinced if something sounds nice without having the skills to question the justifications behind it, and in pursuit of their ideal, they frequently end up going beyond their own moral values, just so as to belong to the in-group or get approval from their authority. In this case, if that authority groomed them to become prominent politicians, they have little backbone to take a stand even if they no longer like what is happening.
Bill Gates is (probably) an ENTJ, which means he has the logical function, but is otherwise equally inclined to believe in objectivity and even better skilled in driving groups of people toward distant goals. He too, may therefore believe that everybody will be happy in the same circumstances, but, in addition, he won’t ‘feel’ it if people are not happy and will easier accept the reductionist view of the schemers.
With regard the masses, about 50% of people (J) need an authority to confirm their beliefs, so they check social positions, credentials, mainstream media and scientific articles. However, if introverted, these people may pick a different authority than that which is traditional or popular, meaning they might find a spiritual explanation or find different sources of research, and that is why many of them now stand in protest despite being Js. Their opposites (Ps) have, by nature, a ‘healthy’ disrespect for authority; they need a truth to stand on its own merit, regardless of credentials or status. This does not mean that all Ps stand in protest, because the other aspects of their personality also play a role.
About 80% of people are focused on the here and now (S); practical rather than theoretical (which is N), and without inclination to compare future, past and current events. They are less likely to see possibilities or to speculate, and, therefore, if they are told there is a virus, they take that as a given and look for practical solutions.
Another 75% are extraverts (E), which makes them more likely to accept the external world as objective and powerful. In the case of a virus or a jab, they are more likely to think those can affect them for good or for bad, making them easier victims for the fear-induction, while introverts (I) tend to give more power to their personal subject and believe they can stop things from harming them.
And, as said above, 50% of people (T) naturally rely on reductionism and data, so if the governments keep spitting out statistics, they see that as evidence, although they are better than Fs at analysing the data and notice if it makes no sense.
In normal circumstances, the arguments between these groups (especially T-F views about reasoning, E-I views about reality, and J-P views about morality) tend to be divided. Over the ages, the views of one and then the other take prevalence and they have been argued about for over 3000 years of philosophical writing. However, when fear is thrown into the mix in a mortal species, and especially a species that has been believing that dying is something terrible, the game changes.
This then, also explains why we are often in conflict with our loved ones over what is happening, because types are not genetic and not environment induced, so that every family has different types of people. The politicians then make things worse, by trying to set loved ones, colleagues and others up against each other, because they believe that will make more people obey, but all it does is create more anxiety and stress inside the home and more anger.
Personally, I believe that artificial intelligence taking over humanity is a naive notion, based on the wet dreams of little boys with aspirations of world domination, but a lack of insight in what reality is like beyond the material they can observe and what the human mind is like beyond the wiring.
If it were really that easy to change our basic psychological existence, we would have long been cloned or been eradicated. All those who tried before have failed. Those who work with machine learning acknowledge it is a far cry from “dealing with new and trying situations” (the definition of intelligence). What machines can do, at best, is repeat and respond to similar situations, but they can neither anticipate, understand context or go beyond their programming, and we know that those who program them tend to rely on superficial markers to recognize emotions and insights, because their own materialistic and data-focused mindset is not aware of most emotions and motivations.
The equally naive notion that we are better than ever before, expressed in phrases like “now we have the power”, “now we understand”, “we evolved to have a conscience”, “we can build a better tomorrow”, “in ways previously impossible”, are all based in a similar belief as that God created humans in its image.
RNA may be the software of life, but it is coded in natural cycles that cannot possibly be understood by people, and certainly not by people who only look at the components and miss the connections to the whole.
Mr Global (or the schemers) appears to be a combination of aristocrats and oligarchs, both from last century and outdated, who measure worth in material things like money and fame, and they will go into history as monsters, their individual names forgotten.
However, they can destroy people physically, as well as their spirit and mental health, but only for a very short time, because people get desensitized. Once they are, the fear disappears and so does the power of those using it as a weapon. Yes, they could, with the help of soldiers destroy all their opponents and even create their one world government, but it will never be based on having changed people; it will never make all people happy and the moment they are dead, things will return to how they were.
But what about the politicians, who were gullible and fell for the deceptions? Are they excusable?
I do not believe so. Even if their type is for a big part responsible for their being deluded themselves, they should have listened to ‘the people’ and should not have acted as if they were superior. This is akin to white people believing they were superior, but the justification for that belief was in their own head and nowhere else, and it did not make discrimination acceptable.
To believe something is a human right, but to impose it on others is NOT.
To believe in a delusion, at the very least, makes one unfit to rule.
The problem is that in times of ideologies, we may actually need a megalomaniac to throw a spoke in the wheel of the blindly following masses and upset the cart. But most of us (me included) ridiculed the megalomaniac who tried to do so.
I previously mentioned the similarities between what we are facing today and what the world faced during or just before the Reformation. A fantastic fictional book (Q by Luther Blissett) follows the events of this complex and tumultuous time. The author’s name is a pseudonym for four Italian writers who have put amazing amounts of research into this.
It very clearly shows the oppression of the Inquisition, but also how easy to influence the masses and how even the oppressors are stuck in their thinking. They were Christians. It didn’t even occur to them that something else was possible. The Catholic Church was the institution that claimed reality and most believed that their ideology, their religion, would make everybody happy. It would create blissful people, who didn’t need to own anything, but would be happy with their faith if they just obeyed the church.
That is why my fictional account of today’s situation is named The Vaccination Inquisition.
How did they eventually overcome the Inquisition? How did the Reformation come about?
Very slowly, by waking the people, one by one, until a tipping point was reached. By helping them to see that their human worth came from God directly and not from the institution that claimed to be the only interpreter of God.
Likewise, today, we need to wake people up to the notion that nature gives us worth, not academia and not politicians who claim to know better than we do. That our psychological diversity gives us the right to think differently. That even those at the top are limited to their own mind and cannot possibly know what is better for others. And, with a bit of luck, considering we have the internet, our tipping point may come about a bit faster.
Thank you for reading.