Love vs. Ghost-Feeding, at the Time of the Great Reset
We are not going to counter the Great Reset by fighting amongst ourselves.
| Jun 24 | 10 | 28 |
‘The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.’ - Aldous Huxley
“A child that is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth” - African Proverb (thank you Michael Kombi McKenna)
I am starting with a video by Malidoma Some to set the tone for doing things right.
This is a very difficult and easy piece to write. Difficult, because it requires going against the passionate new dogma that has recently emerged among a few of my favorite people. By nature, I like harmony from horizon to horizon and prefer lovemaking to any contentious matters at any given time! But it is also easy because I know in my heart that if I don’t speak now, I will be embarrassed later. I feel responsible for doing my part, and so I need to say it out loud, with uttermost sincerity, that the current state of “principled” in-fighting in the “anti-great-reset” community is very dangerous. I mourn it because I know how it will end if we don’t snap out of it immediately. I want to add my gut and experience to the mix, with love.
My concern is practical. In my own life, I’ve done Big Tech research for years, made art exposing its harmful impact, I’ve been in activist movements—and I know with certainty that even the best ideas without even-headedness can be tricky. Ideas can make us feel smart, they can make us feel like “initiates” of a special group—but they cannot heal our hearts. And if we bring our Sacred Trauma into our “ideas” plight, without making a concerted effort to genuinely heal and stop identifying with our trauma—the result tends to be more wreckage, no matter the original idea. This is why they say what the say about good intentions…
We cannot stand up to the transhumanist cult by forming an anti-transhumanist cult and building a wall around us. It is simply not how fighting evil works. Healing happens though different mechanisms. And sadly, the reality is such that if we don't snap out of in-fighting now, we’ll enjoy being right all the way off the cliff and into the Great Reset—and it’s not good. And yes, I have a theory on what’s driving the conflict in this case but my theory is secondary, and I am not yet sure, so I will focus on the most important thing that’s true regardless of the circumstances.
To make it clear, I fully respect and admire any sincere principled position, applied within. A principled position applied within is worth admiring. For instance, if someone is vegan out of protesting factory farming, I sincerely admire that, while my practical battles are in different areas. But if a priest of veganism starts the missionary thing, I run, and fast. I try to only engage with one-track missionaries when it’s important to me or my community because the domination sentiment is rooted in spiritual hunger and lack of real faith in the universe, and it’s a tough thing to handle. It’s not a fault. It’s trauma. Often generation trauma. But a tough thing to handle none the less. Missionaries almost never seek dialogue but instead seek confirmation because “they are obviously right.” To a person with this particular trauma, “being understood” means “feeding their ghosts,” it’s an act of subjugation. But underneath it all, there is a child who never got the love they were entitled to. And it becomes a very complicated dance, which can only be danced with love on behalf of those who are already relatively healed. I believe it’s worth dancing it and praying for the best.
This particular dynamic is driven by two ghosts, and it is all around us, in very different areas. Usually the ghost of victimhood and ghost of fanaticism work together, and they keep the person locked in a self-imposed prison of dependence on “rules” or “correct ideas.” Fanaticism is the feeling that does not allow the room for others to think differently and yet be considered “good” in principle. As a result of trauma, the person sees any sincere and even loving disagreement as an attack, and the default reaction is extreme defensiveness or even aggression, depending on the person. And it is the self-imposed prisoner status that compels the person to sincerely act like they are always under attack by virtue of not having unanimous agreement, and that their logic is the only truth. Intolerant behavior is an unmistakable sign of an emotional imbalance or extreme depletion. One doesn’t have to be a superhero to be tolerant, it’s the healthy state of a human being. But some people are heroes, and one of my heroes is Daryl Davis.
And when one suffers from the malady of intolerance, it is on the community, family, and close friends—whoever is available—to patiently and lovingly work with the self-imposed prisoner / martyr to help them get over the trauma and leave the pain behind, so that they can stand on the ground with both feet from the inside and fully realize their gift. It is very hard. But the health of the community depends on the health of every member, so this really needs to be done. This is something I have discovered relatively recently because I have encountered it in the family—and I came to realize that healing this dynamic is extremely important in our culture because there is a lot of it.
I believe that it is a sign of spiritual maturity to be grounded and be able to withstand non-violent disagreement without getting thrown off one’s important axis. I believe that each of us with any sort of influence owes it to the whole community to seek and promote respectful communication, as opposed to perpetual calling out of those who think differently. (Hello, my Soviet childhood.)
Now, let’s look at it from a very specific practical perspective (as I am very much interested in actually countering this insane reform).
So the richest people in the world, the alphabets, the most important politicians, the most influential corporate founders, the banksters, the Vatican, and all sorts of extremely influential human beings of this planet are hell-bent on bringing this awful, anti-human transhumanist reform upon us—in the name of improving their asset management. Their desire is rooted in their sensory inability to deal with uncertainty. They have an issue with existential truth, namely that we, human beings, only control our choices, and do not really control much of anything else, although we can live very happily in harmony with the universe (which their asset management is not).
So, that’s what we are facing. A bunch of powerful crazies, military grade sci-fi technology, and a ton of anxious need to control everything in the world.
Can any of us realistically counter this Great Bulldozer merely by figuring out what’s going on and then claiming that we have no patience for anyone who has their own way of looking at things? Is there a chance? How far will we get without adding love, patience, respect, humility, and faith in the wisdom of the universe to the mix?
It is my strong belief, and my most important message to the world, that in order to face this challenge honorably and have any chance at all, we need to first and foremost look within and heal ourselves, and help others heal, and treat each other with dignity, and respect their mystery that could be complementary to ours but not identical, and forgive each other’s messes as long as there is a desire to communicate. And if we have love and we are stronger than someone else, we can help them the best we can, and use our heads in each moment to try do what’s right. There is no formula. There is zero guarantee. But that’s the only process I am familiar with.
(Also please see this beautiful story that resonates with me a lot.)
My heart is bleeding as I watch love and even-headedness, our main strengths against the Great Resetters, being derailed in the name of …wait… fighting the Great Reset?!!! When was the last time in history when this approach worked? When was any ugly thing prevented by giving in to irritation and by choosing “my team” and trashing the other team? And I don’t care how good or bad any idea is, it just doesn’t work this way! And here again we are given an opportunity to grow and remember how to walk in spirit—why not embrace the opportunity to do things differently, and counter the Great Reset with love and patience toward each other, over all our imperfections and differences?
Fighting amongst ourselves in the name of countering the Great Reset is like killing someone to make sure they never die. It’s like watching history replay for the thousandth time. Our very livelihood is at stake, so is now really a great time to engage in this kind of behavior and build walls around each small subset of us—and view each disagreement as a Team Code violation? Will it help?
Also, the idea is that this fight is really mainly over blockchain at the core of it doesn’t ring true to me. I think it is a spiritual battle, and the pressure we are experiencing is an opportunity to remember our unique gifts and life’s missions. I think it’s critical that we respect each other’s perspectives. In the end, everyone chooses for themselves and picks their important battle, and this is the beauty of life. Together, we make a puzzle of incredible beauty. But we really have a much stronger chance of changing things for the better if we do it together—even it means eating at the transhumanist reform from different ends of it—and that requires patience, and love, and yes, tolerance. I want to emphasize—this is not theory. This is reality, because as much as we all want the world to be perfect to our liking specifically, that reality is imaginary, and we need to work with the real reality, in which we are all different and deserve spiritual respect.
So here is the gist as it relates to the blockchain:
Some of the sickest, most damaged human beings in positions of great power have decided that all living forms on earth must be managed more efficiently—and for the first time in history, the technology allows them to do that with great precision.
In order to manage us efficiently, the self-pointed owners of everything on Earth first want to thoroughly count us and record our deeds—and then treat us like digital cattle or financial assets, more or less.
The way they want to count us and organize us in the format of data bundles, or “digital twins,” is by using blockchain.
Blockchain is a glorified database with bells and whistles.
(Here is a great technical explanation, and also below is an extremely valuable deep dive by Joseph Gonzalez on Jason Bosch’s podcast, in which they go in great detail into 4IR).
If, based on personal feelings and preferences, one chooses the boycott of blockchain as the preferred form of resisting the Great Reset, I respect it as a principled choice within—as I respect all sincere forms of resisting the Great Reset. Blockchain is a tool that the super wealthy are counting on to turn us into digital assets, and so this tool is going to be abused by them without a doubt (not so much based on its evil qualities—it’s a database—but based on what sentiment is driving the game). However, in practical terms, as much as I want this tool to not be available to the psychopaths for destructive purposes, I think it is very much available to them, and no amount of our social media posts is going to change that. They have the money to push things through. Most likely, this boycott is just not going to happen on a massive scale regardless of whether blockchain is good or bad, just like the boycott of the internet, or computers, or digital devices has never happened. And what are we going to say if welfare moves to blockchain? Tell the poor to “eat cake”?
But we are far from helpless. While they have the power to push through various technologies, they don’t have the power to destroy our power to love. And walk our destiny. And pray to our good ancestors for answers. And just keep doing it until we prevail.
I am saying all this as someone who has been mocking the cult of blockchain for years. I laughed when adding the word “blockchain” to the product name made company stock go up. It was ridiculous. Blockchain is just a way to store things. Not the panacea, not the devil in itself, it’s just a database—and yes, it is a horrible idea to record our digital twins and our digital identities on blockchain or in any other database. It is a horrible idea. The internet of things is a horrible idea. The internet of bodies is an extra horrible idea. In fact, even just too much dependency on computers and AI in itself is a horrible idea because it won’t be long before something glitches and entire cities lose power, including hospitals and banks—and we don’t even need Schwab’s will for that as much as it exists, it’s just how computers work (please see the brilliant documentary about Joseph Weizenbaum called “Plug and Pray”). But as bad as all of those things really are, we are not going to solve the issue by fighting amongst ourselves. How we are going to solve it is a mystery, but it’s not by fighting among ourselves.
By a show of hands, who is pure? Who here isn’t using banks, the internet, digital devices, cars, social media? There surely wouldn’t be any twitching in the direction of the Great Reset without the internet, a military project from A to Z. So, who’s gonna sign off for good? Who’ll throw out their smartphone to honor the children in Africa who had to rummage through toxic piles for the device to be made? And who doesn’t in some way depend on dirty, dirty business (either by working for a corporation that uses all those things or by being financially dependent on another human being who earns a living in today’s society?)
And while I fully respect it that some of us might feel that blockchain is slavery, I think that blockchain is a technology that the most powerful people in the world want to adopt for this new reiteration of what Steven Newcomb calls the domination system, which is the foundation of our entire “civilization” (which started with “conquering” nature and the indigenous peoples). And it is the centuries-old mentality that is wreaking havoc, and all the trauma that it brought upon us—while the technology, which, let me repeat, I wouldn’t cry over if it disappeared, is merely a symptom.
Personally, I am passionately against sacrificing people to ideas. I feel strongly about the need for tolerance and keeping an open dialogue with other members of our community because I’ve lived under different isms and different “obviously correct narratives,” and it has been my observation that no matter how good any idea is, when it becomes an absolute to the extent that it gets in the way of soulful communication with actual people, all is lost. And another thing I want to emphasize is that I am not even slightly interested in the “he said she said” kind of gossip or in assigning labels of saints and villains. There are no saints, and no villains, only the need to heal.
On all sides of this multi-sided battle in our community, there are people whose work is brilliant, unique, and valuable.
Let us please not feed each other’s ghosts—and instead, practice real love.
It may save us.
Note: Thank you so much all who donated! I am adding everyone who has donated to the “comp” list on my “paid” Substack. Sorry it is taking me a couple of days, I’ve been sick (not dying, luckily, but dealing with that in addition to other things). If you didn’t see my earlier message and can donate now, I’ll be very grateful since I am still dealing with a bit of a financial crisis but please only do it if you can.
| 10 | 28 |
I know nothing about this fight, but this sort of fracturing is incredibly common in modern activism. I tend to see it more on the leftward end vs. the rightward end in the USA at least, which I would attribute to the right having more of a shared set of spiritual beliefs and values (mostly based on forms of Christianity) while the left disavows religion and so tends to imbue a religious level of importance in the rightness or wrongness of particular ideas or positions which inevitably come into conflict. While I am not a fan of any of the major religions, I think that leftward-leaning ecological/environmental/populist activism will struggle until we can acknowledge that belief and spirituality are fundamental needs for human beings, and we can begin to find common ground in these areas.
I wonder if there might be more than one way to practice the love about which you write, Tessa. Sometimes, if only temporarily, formality and distance can help a situation, especially in the public world.
I am an old academic, new to activism, and probably not suited to it personality-wise, but I've been watching. My intuition is that doing very serious work, work which is much larger than the self, is overwhelming, and perhaps even like divine madness at times. I personally don't think essentially private people in relatively new roles should be pressured to have to trust, connect or dialogue with anyone. If someone doing serious work decides they needs space, I think it is perhaps my job, out of the love about which you write, to find a way to support them.
For me, and this is just because of my background perhaps, one approach is to create a dialogue about the ideas, strategies, theories of change, that are at issue, that may differentiate folks, without talking about the folks themselves so personally.
I hope at least it is possible to heal the wounds a little perhaps, just by focusing on the ideas, at some remove from the personalities.
I appreciate what you wrote about Blockchain, I too value principled positions and understand that it might not be wise to assume everyone is capable or willing to live by them. And/or they may have different principles.
I have been listening to folks say that they understand the critique of Blockchain, but have yet to hear anything satisfactory from the fence sitters, stakeholder journalists. If it is a matter of personal interest, a means of protecting oneself from hyperinflation, a business plan, etc. one can simply say this. This would be honest. If there have been miracles of technology that prevent data from being harvested, that would be great to know.
These are some of my thoughts, probably whack, but perhaps a conversation starter:
While some focus on the control system and profit motive driving social impact investing, I keep thinking about Blockchain as a means of recording biomedical information for it's own sake, not just for profit of speculators. I think the model of the world we must prevent is an unregulated biomedical experiment, sans informed consent. Blockchain will work splendidly for this, as it could also facilitate efficient and anonymous mass killing.
I see Blockchain institutionally, as a substitute for our present institutions, which are still staffed by humans. No matter what the libertarians say, no one has really thought through the implications of replacing human institutions all together: smart contracts replacing thousands of years of jurisprudence, ethics, etc. I know our systems are corrupt, serve the rich, etc., but I am not looking forward to the Hunger Games regulated by smart contracts in the smart cities run by psychopath billionaires who "do not believe in democracy."
I do not want governance according to the game theory. Unlike the folks who are salivating at the possibility of living without trust or democracy, I worry that these experiments, in a time of climate breakdown and scarcity, are going to be more like Jonestown than Mayberry.
I see the biomedical experiment in the camps as the model. I am reminded that I recently learned that the Nazis set up monetary systems in some ghettos and many camps. The camp currencies were meager, unstable, would expire, were deflationary to the point of genocide, and at the same time served to deceive people unaware of the coming Final Solution. The Holocaust money encouraged them not to flee.
So for me, personally, when I run into folk who are themselves, or are closely allied with those who are setting up intentional communities with bitcoin or whatever, or are on record celebrating the possibility of such experiments in explicitly undemocratic terms, I feel nervous, uneasy. I personally would need to know more about their thoughts, their understanding of their actions, commitments, the degree to which they are aware of real, concrete dangers.
I don't think I could trust them right away, you know?
But if folks can respond to me, or better, just to the thoughts I've put forth here, not to me personally so much, and put my paranoid bs in order, perhaps that would be a kind of healing, Some of the love about which you write.